Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL TIED COTTAGES (EVICTION ORDERS)

Mr. Derek Page: asked the Attorney-General how many eviction orders have been granted by courts against tenants of agricultural tied cottages under the Protection from Eviction Act; and how many of these cases resulted in a length of notice up to one month, one to two months inclusive, two to three months inclusive, three to six months inclusive, and six to 12 months inclusive, respectively.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the differences of opinion about whether the protection offered by the Protection from Eviction Act and under the new Rent Bill, should it become law, is adequate, and will he consider keeping a close statistical record to enable rational discussion of these differences?

The Attorney-General: I appreciate the force of what my hon. Friend says. As to the keeping of statistics, quarterly returns are now being received from the courts about the number of possession orders made by them in all proceedings, but there are no separate figures of possession orders relating to tied cottages. I am bound to say that the amount of work which would be required to gather that kind of information would be very considerable, and, of course, it is not always possible to tell from the pleadings or even from the judges' notes whether a particular case concerns a tied cottage; but we are doing what we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — KODAK LTD.

Mr. Orbach: asked the Attorney-General what representations have been made to him concerning a prosecution by Messrs. Kodak Ltd., of two of their employees, which was dismissed by the courts, and which showed that there was a conspiracy by Messrs Kodak Ltd. and a foreign agent to pervert the course of justice; and if he will request the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings for conspiracy by the company and perjury by their agent.

The Attorney-General: I have received five letters on this subject from hon. Members and one signed by a number of members of the public. This prosecution was not brought by Messrs. Kodak Ltd., but, with my consent, by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I cannot agree that the proceedings revealed a conspiracy on the part of Kodaks to pervert the course of justice, and I have come to the conclusion, after taking all the relevant considerations into account, that the witness, Soupert, should not be prosecuted for perjury. The Director of Public Prosecutions takes the same view.

Mr. Orbach: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, although from my point of view it is not very satisfactory. [Interruption.] thanked him because he had been courteous. Is he aware that these two men were arrested on a trumped-up charge of stealing felt on 29th November, 1964, that one of them was called upon by an inspector and six plain clothes policemen, that the other was arrested at work and that these charges were also withdrawn before the case in which Messrs. Kodak was involved? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that in view of the inducement given to the double agent Soupert of £5,000 by the Kodak Company to come to this country to give evidence—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot rehearse all these facts in the form of a supplementary question. Cannot the hon. Gentleman somehow round it off?

Mr. Orbach: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that all the circumstances in this case—in view of the


latest incident which I have brought to his attention—show a shocking miscarriage of justice?

The Attorney-General: I have considered all the factors that have been referred to by my hon. Friend. There was no shocking miscarriage of justice in the sense that the two accused, of whom he speaks, were acquitted. With great respect, I wonder whether their best interest is served by a rehearing of the trial in the House of Commons.

Mr. Grant: Will the Attorney-General make it quite clear that not only was the prosecution brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions and not by Messrs. Kodak, but that the compilation and acquiring of evidence was done by the police and not by Kodaks? Is it in order for an hon. Member, under the cloak of privilege, to make serious accusations without shred of evidence against people who cannot answer back?

Mr. Speaker: It is inconvenient to raise a point of order in the middle of a supplementary question addressed to a minister from every conceivable point of view. What the hon. Member did is in order. In so far as it raises a point of order, the hon. Gentleman's complaint is not against the Chair but against another hon. Member because he does not like what he said.

The Attorney-General: In so far as any of the last supplementary question remains, I have nothing to add to what I said in my initial Answer to the Question.

Mr. Lipton: Do the relevant considerations to which the Attorney-General referred in his original reply mean that certain security considerations are here involved which make it desirable, from the Government's point of view, that the least said soonest mended?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that supplementary question. Security considerations were involved, and I am sure that the House would not expect me to go into them.

Mr. Orbach: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Dundee Development District

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for changing the status of the Dundee development district.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): None, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the sole basis for the Dundee development district is the special position of the jute industry but that other burghs in Angus are more dependent than Dundee on the jute industry'? Would he, therefore, take steps to extend the scope of the development district to include those burghs?

Mr. Jay: Fortunately, unemployment is not at the moment very high either in Dundee or the surrounding district, but if we see any need for an extension we shall make it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The issue is not unemployment but the dependence of the area on the jute industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this aspect again with some urgency?

Mr. Jay: Under the present law, which was introduced by the party opposite, it is only if the dependence on jute leads to a threat of unemployment that we are able to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Tomatoes and Cucumbers

Mr. Younger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increase in imports of tomatoes and cucumbers from abroad, and the resultant drain on our foreign currency, he will take action to regulate these imports in the future.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Redhead): My right hon. Friend does not consider that any restriction of imports is needed over and above that effected by the tariff.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Member aware that recent increases in imports of both tomatoes and cucumbers are causing the very greatest concern both to the horticultural industry and to the


public? Will he have consultations with our foreign suppliers with a view to regulating imports by agreement, in order to give our home producers at least a reasonable share of the market and safeguard our foreign currency?

Mr. Redhead: While there has been some degree of increase in imports of these two commodities, nevertheless, they are not in our view of such significance as to warrant the steps the hon. Member proposes. It has been the policy of successive Governments that protection of the domestic producers should be by means of the tariff. The use of any quantitative restrictions would be a contravention of the provisions of the G.A.T.T.

Mr. Derek Page: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is part of the wider question of the control of horticultural imports, and that a hortcultural commission might well be the real answer?

Mr. Redhead: That is another point, which I would require to consider in greater detail.

Shipowners (Credit Facilities)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now renew the Shipbuilding Credits Scheme.

Mr. McMaster: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to improve the credit facilities available to British shipowners who place new orders with United Kingdom shipyards.

Mr. Jay: I see no reason for Government action on credit facilities for British shipowners.

Mr. Taylor: Would the President of the Board of Trade not agree that his reply will be very disappointing indeed to those in the shipbuilding industry, who are very concerned at the removal of the Scheme and now find that foreign shipowners can buy ships in this country at more favourable credit terms than can British shipping companies? Would he agree to review the matter of the effects of the Budget on the industry are as disastrous as the major oil companies anticipate?

Mr. Jay: As the hon. Member knows, since the new export credits facilities were announced by me in January there has been a remarkable increase in orders for ships. I announced further credit facilities last week, and I think we had better see the effect of these and have the report of the Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee before taking further decisions.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Common Market countries are at present seriously considering giving a 10 per cent. subsidy to shipbuilding in order to compete with Japan? Is he further aware that a few weeks ago I received an answer from the Government saying that British owners were not at a disadvantage as against foreign shipowners ordering vessels here because they could take advantage of the investment allowance? Now that that advantage has gone, it is no satisfaction that foreign owners can order ships under the export credits scheme. It is the British owners we are concerned about, particularly in view of the statement made by the Chairman of B.P.

Mr. Jay: All the investment allowance has not gone. It is merely been somewhat diminished, but it is still there—and on some argument it has not even been diminished. [Laughter.]It is a somewhat obtuse argument, but it is still there; perhaps we have better see the effects before taking a decision.

Mr. Barber: As the right hon. Gentleman rightly agrees that one effect of the Corporation Tax will be adversely to affect the shipping industry and hence the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry, will he not do something to make up for loss that is bound to occur as a result of the Corporation Tax?

Mr. Jay: I have done a great deal by the export credits scheme, which, as I say, has led to some very encouraging orders to the industry, but we must not suppose that the situation entirely depends on credit facilities from the Government, but partly on the efficiency and competitiveness of the industry.

Mr. Derek Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to read newspapers in the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is proper for hon. Members to refer to newspapers if they are studying the business of the moment. I feel confident that no hon. Member would do anything but that.

Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend note that the shipbuilders, who believe so much in private enterprise, have the begging bowl out again?

Mr. McMaster: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Flour Milling and Baking Trade

Mr. Hamling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is considering to combat monopoly practices in the flour-milling industry.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take to combat monopoly practices in the flour milling industry and in the retail bakery trade.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Members will let me have information about the monopoly practices they have in mind, I will consider whether a reference to the Monopolies Commission would be appropriate.

China

Mr. Jackson: asked the President of the Board of Trade, following his visit to Peking, what progress has been made in increasing trade between Great Britain and China.

Mr. Jay: British traders are continuing to develop the contacts they have made with the Chinese State Trading Corporations. I am glad to say that orders for two ships and a chemical plant, together worth £5 million, as well as numerous other contracts, have been placed in Britain within the past few months.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but will he bear in mind that China is at present in the take-off stage of its economic development and that its import requirements are likely to increase greatly, and will he make sure that Britain maintains a share of that trade, particularly by an expanding British representation in Canton?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. That was one of the impressions I gained in Peking last autumn, and that is why I thought it was an opportune moment for the exhibition to be held.

Sir H. Harrison: Whilst we may welcome this trade, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these goods will be paid for?

Mr. Jay: Oh, yes. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that two years ago there were orders for aircraft from China? In view of the possibilities of an expanding market for aircraft in China and the plight of the aircraft industry in this country, does he not think that this could be developed?

Mr. Jay: This is a point which we have not overlooked.

Company Profits and Directors' Fees

Mr. Hamling: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek powers to order private companies to publish information on distributed and undistributed profits and directors' fees and expenses.

Mr. Jay: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the proposals I shall be making for new company legislation.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side believe that while income restraint is being exercised we should look very closely at the profits and incomes of people in private companies?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. That is certainly a relevant point.

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made on the process of revising the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and on what particular subjects a start has been made.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): As I told the hon. and learned Member on 25th February, discussions at official level are in progress between the Board of Trade and


the shipowners' and seafarers' organisations about the provisions relating to seafarers, but I cannot say what the outcome will be.

Sir Knox Cunningham: When are we to have some of the dynamic action we have been promised? Will the hon. Gentleman take the advice of his right hon. Friend and start by knocking hell out of his Department?

Mr. Mason: The hon. and learned Gentleman has in the past put down eight Questions on this topic asking for some action to be taken by the previous Administration. On every occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the then Minister of Transport refused to take any action at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman pressed for this to be done in a speech on the Gracious Speech. We have now started discussions, and I cannot understand what he is belly-aching about.

Mr. Ogden: Would not my hon. Friend agree that we on this side of the House, possibly in agreement with the Merchant Shipping Association, are more concerned to have the right decision than a hasty one? Is he aware that we accept that my hon. Friend has been discussing the subject for a matter of months but that the decisions will have to apply for a matter of years?

Mr. Mason: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for showing greater wisdom than the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a vast and complicated problem, and will take a long time to deal with. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have to be patient.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are over 60 different statutes which deal with the Merchant Shipping Act and that these conversations have been going on for quite a long time? When will he get down to the Matter?

Mr. Mason: We are aware of the many Acts flowing from the 1894 Act, but in their 13 years the Tory Administration refused the whole time to look at the matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is it in order to ask the Minister to "knock hell out of his Department"?

Mr. Speaker: Very odd things are happening at the moment.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I certainly withdraw that remark. I was led astray by what was said in a speech by the Prime Minister in America.

Mr. Speaker: These public confessions do not help us to get on with Questions.

Trade Missions

Mr. Dell: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many proposals for inward and outward trade missions have been submitted to the British National Export Council; and how many of these have been approved for the purpose of Government grant.

Mr. Jay: Eleven proposals for inward and five for outward missions. Four of each have been approved. Two proposals for outward missions have been rejected, and the rest are being considered.

Mr. Dell: Are not these figures so far rather disappointing? Are they in fact coming in at the rate the Government are expecting? What arrangements are the Government making to check the results of these missions?

Mr. Jay: I think these figures are reasonably encouraging. After all, we offered these facilities only in January. Since then industrial organisations have had to react to them and put in proposals which have to be examined. I do not think it is a bad record up to date. I shall certainly watch the effect of the missions when they take place.

Export Council (Market Research Projects)

Mr. Dell: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many proposals for market research projects have been submitted to the British National Export Council by trade associations or chambers of commerce; and how many of these proposals have been approved for the purpose of Government grant.

Mr. Jay: Six, of which one has so far been approved. The others are being examined.

Mr. Dell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although these projects may give useful background information, they are not likely to be very useful to specific companies? Will the Government consider ways of giving help to research projects directly useful to the exports of specific companies?

Mr. Jay: Yes, we are examining that, but if we move from general market research projects to schemes affecting particular companies we are more likely to get into the arena of export subsidies, and we are very anxious in this matter to keep to our international obligations.

Transistor Radios

Mr. Freeson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to restrain the import of transistor radio sets into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir.

Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that, according to certain trade sources, last year something like 1,700,000 transistor sets were imported to the approximate value of £3¾ million? Does he not consider that these are serious figures having regard to the export-import balance of this country? Will he keep an eye on the matter to see whether action should be taken?

Mr. Redhead: The import of these articles has been increasing, but the House should keep in mind that Hong Kong is our major overseas supplier in this connection and it is recognised that our basic policy is not to restrict imports from Commonwealth countries. It will be recognised that Hong Kong is in a very special position in relation to this country and, on the other hand, maintains a free market for our imports. In those circumstances, we do not think that this calls for the special action suggested.

Mr. Lipton: For the sake of peace and quietness, would it not be a good idea to restrain the manufacture of transistor sets wherever they come from?

Mr. Redhead: Although that is a question with which I have some sympathy, it does not strictly arise from the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Biffen: Will the Minister confirm that these transistor radios are sub-

ject to import surcharge? Can he say if he has an indication that the import surcharge has had some effect upon reduction of their importation?

Mr. Redhead: Certainly they bear the import surcharge in common with other radio sets. As to the effect of the surcharge on this particular category, I should not like to venture.

Goods (Testing and Labelling)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what machinery he proposes to set up to ensure that goods are independently tested and accurately labelled.

Mr. Jay: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) on 4th March.

Mr. Walker: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that in its election manifesto the Labour Party promised that all goods would be independently tested? If he does intend to introduce legislation, will he bring a White Paper outlining how he intends doing this?

Mr. Jay: As the hon. Member knows, besides the B.S.I. there are a number of independent testing houses, including laboratories. We are also preparing merchandise marks legislation which I hope will be introduced next Session.

Cairngorms (Ski Facilities)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance is to be given by Her Majesty's Government to the Cairngorm Development Board in providing, without profit to themselves, improved ski facilities to tourists who come to Scotland.

Mr. Jay: An application from the Board for loan assistance under the Local Employment Acts would be considered on its merits.

Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that previous requests of this nature were refused by the previous Government and indications were made by his Ministry that there was no basic change in policy? Could he give an assurance that the Board of Trade is enthusiastic about this


project, which is of immense importance to the Highlands and which I thought would be one which would attract a Socialist Government in many ways?

Mr. Jay: We are enthusiastic about all good projects, but our powers are limited by the law.

Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend notice the Liberal enthusiasm for Socialism?

Mr. Johnston: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Ex-s.s. "Californian" (captain Lord)

Mr. Ogden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the petition on behalf of the late Captain Lord, ex-s.s. "Californian", presented by the Mercantile Marine Service Association; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: The petition is being carefully studied, and I have nothing to add at present to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) on 1st March.

Mr. Ogden: Will my hon. Friend note that seamen have more patience than politicians in this matter? There is some concern among hon. Members of all parties about the progress of the report, although the petitioners are fully aware of the complex nature of the matter and the efficiency of the officers of his Department. Will the President of the Board of Trade consider after the Recess receiving an all-party deputation to discuss not only the pros and cons but the progress of the report through the Department?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that will be necessary. I have had the petition for only two months. If my hon. Friend will consider putting down a Question after the Recess, I shall see if I can answer more fully.

Mr. Ogden: Did my hon. Friend say that he had had the petition for only two weeks?

Mr. Mason: No, two months.

Mr. Ogden: I beg his pardon.

Rhodesia and South Africa

Mr. Wall: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of exports to and imports from Rhodesia and South Africa, respectively, during the past six months; and how these figures compare with the equivalent period a year ago.

Mr. Redhead: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL
REPORT.

Mr. Wall: Does the Minister agree that these figures will show that these two countries are our third or fourth best markets? Is it wise to prejudice good will by rejecting orders for £150 million worth of arms for external defence? These orders are now going to our industrial competitors, such as France, who are also members of the United Nations.

Mr. Redhead: It remains the policy of the Government to foster trade with both countries on a reciprocal basis in the general field of trade. Arms, however, as has been repeatedly indicated in this House, are an entirely separate matter. I acknowledge that they are substantial customers of ours and the evidence of the figures will show that indeed they continue to be growingly important customers and that the trade is both ways.

Sir H. Harrison: Bearing in mind the Minister's reply and that South Africa is in a five-year boom and a big importer, would he not consider that in in this very vital export market for this country a visit by himself, or the President of the Board of Trade, purely on trade matters might be a great help to the trade of the two countries?

Mr. Redhead: The trade is so flourishing with South Africa that such a move does not seem necessary. We might devote our attention more profitably elsewhere. We know of no case where it has been established that British firms have lost important civilian orders because of the arms ban.

Mr. Rowland: Can the hon. Gentleman say if he has made an estimate


of the extent to which Rhodesian exports would be reduced by removal of Commonwealth Preference?

Mr. Redhead: Not without notice.

Following is the answer:


UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS AND EXPORTS




£ million



Countries


Period
Southern Rhodesia, Zambia and Malawi (a)
Republic of South Africa


IMPORTS


October, 1963-March, 1964 (b)
45·0
56·3


October, 1964-March, 1965 (c)
51·3
53·1


October,1964-March, 1965 (c)
51·6
82·7


U.K. EXPORTS


October, 1963-March, 1964 (b)
20·0
104·2


October, 1964-March, 1965 (b)
22·7
118·1


October, 1964-March, 1965 (c)
22·9
125·9


RE-EXPORTS


October, 1963-March, 1964
0·1
1·4


October, 1964-March, 1965
0·1
1·7

(a) For 1963 and 1964, figures are available only for total trade with the countries as a group (the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland), and not with individual countries.

(b) Comparable figures on old basis.

(c) On revised basis, including diamonds and other precious stones (formerly omitted) and using revised average values for parcel post imports.

Consumer Protection

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the Consumer Council to complete its study of door-to-door selling and to produce recommendations for the licensing of door-to-door salesmen.

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the Consumer Council to produce the first labels under its informative labelling proposals, and to which goods these labels will apply.

Mr. Jay: The Consumer Council is an independent body. I suggest that my hon. Friend should put these questions to the Council direct.

Mr. Morris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he accept that this matter should be treated with

great urgency? I have received repeated representations. Is not there any action that the Board of Trade itself can take to correct the matter?

Mr. Jay: I have discussed this question with the Consumer Council. I have every reason to think that the study is going forward, but as the Council does not act under my instruction I do not think that I ought to answer for the Council on this sort of point.

Mr. Rose: In relation to the question of licensing door-to-door salesmen, will my right hon. Friend also consider the possibility of drawing up a code of conduct for these people?

Mr. Jay: I will certainly consider that and, if the Consumer Council has any advice to offer, I will of course listen to it with care.

Imports

Mr. Channon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the likely level of imports for the next six-month period.

Mr. Jay: It is not the practice to publish estimates of this kind.

Mr. Channon: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that the way the announcement of the partial removal of the import surcharge was made was rather unfortunate, with so much notice being given? Inevitably there will be an enormous backlog waiting to come in as soon as the surcharge is removed.

Mr. Jay: No. That is not the view of those who have most experience of these matters. The change is only from 15 per cent. to 10 percent. and it is not expected that this will cause any dislocation.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman again look at the position of Hong Kong, which is suffering very badly from the import surcharge? Would he consider making an exception for this Colony?

Mr. Jay: We have considered that point very carefully, but, on the whole, our view is that it is best not to discriminate in the surcharge. As it is reduced—it is being reduced now—Hong Kong will benefit as well as other countries.

Mr. Barber: In the estimate of the level of imports which the right hon. Gentleman will have made within his Department, no doubt he will have taken into account the balance of trade on petrol and petroleum products. With a view to deterring an increase in the importation of these products, will the President of the Board of Trade give a categorical assurance that the Government will have no truck with the Motion tabled by some of his hon. Friends which has appeared on the Order Paper this morning advocating the complete nationalisation of British Petroleum?

Mr. Jay: I would rather study this Motion before giving any assurance, categorical or otherwise.

Mr. Barber: Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman is seriously considering this proposal?

Mr. Jay: No. The Government have no such intention, but I do not like to comment on Motions before I have even read them.

Hire Purchase

Mr. Rose: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will review the operation of section 4(1) of the Hire Purchase Act, 1964, is so far as the minimum purchase price of £30 is concerned.

Mr. Jay: This new provision only came into operation on 1st January, and I think it is too early to assess how it is working out in practice.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of articles sold by door-to-door salesmen cost less than £30? Is he further aware that many purchasers are misled with a false sense of security because of the provisions of the Act regarding the cooling-off period? Would he, therefore, take some action to publicise the situation and also examine the operation of the existing law?

Mr. Jay: Yes, I will take note of what my hon. Friend says and watch the operation of the law; but as it has been in operation for such a very short time, I do not think that we should yet consider proposals to amend it.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend agree that salesmen are not necessarily

bad simply because they are door-to-door salesmen? The majority of salesmen who by virtue of the practice of their calling go from door to door, do a worthwhile and useful job. It is the minority of those in this occupation of whom we have complaint.

Mr. Jay: Yes, I think that is perfectly true.

East Germany

Mr. Rose: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate talks with the Government of the German Democratic Republic with a view to expanding the existing volume of trade with that country.

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the so-called German Democratic Republic.

Mr. Rose: Is my hon. Friend aware that official sources in East Germany have recently stated that the annual trade between our two countries could be trebled? I ask him not to allow his and my natural distaste for aspects of the East German régime to stand in the way of trade with this vastly expanding market.

Mr. Redhead: The expression of that hope, I regret to say, is not reflected in our recent experience of trade with East Germany. Unfortunately, it has fallen far short of the provisions made in the 1964 trade arrangements negotiated by the Federation of British Industries.

G.A.T.T.

Sir R. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek further amendment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade so as to revise the No New Preference rule, in view of the violations of this rule which have occurred in recent months.

Mr. Jay: Proposals for amending the G.A.T.T. to permit preferential reductions of duties for the benefit of developing countries are already under consideration in the G.A.T.T. and have the support of Her Majesty's Government.

Sir R. Russell: I appreciate that point, but would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would now be a great advantage if this rule could be revised altogether, not only in the interests of developing countries, but in the interests


of all countries, particularly in view of any possible attempts to get greater economic co-operation between Britain and Europe?

Mr. Jay: What is clear is that if breaches are to be made by other countries in these arrangements we cannot be expected rigidly to observe them. What is not so clear, however, is that it would be in the interests of this country that the present arrangements should break down.

Mr. Dell: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the amendments now under consideration in G.A.T.T. refer to generalising preferential areas so that all developed countries offer preferences to all developing countries, or whether the idea is to split the developing countries so that, for example, the United States can give preference to Latin America?

Mr. Jay: The former. The object of these discussions is that all developed countries should give preferences to less affluent and developing countries.

Sir R. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade when Part IV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will come into operation; to which commodities it will apply; and what will be the effect on Commonwealth countries of applying it to underdeveloped foreign countries.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the new Part IV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has now come into effect; which contracting parties have, and which have not, accepted it; to what extent it is already being applied by the United Kingdom and other signatories; and what further modifications of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade are contemplated.

Mr. Jay: The new Part IV of the General Agreement will become effective when it has been accepted by two-thirds of the Contracting Parties. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT lists of those Governments who have, or have not yet, accepted it, according to our latest information. Meanwhile, it is being implemented de facto by the United Kingdom and by many other Governments who assented to the Declaration which is included in the White Paper. Certain provisions define

the goods to which they apply, for example, products of particular export interest to less-developed countries. The application of Part IV should benefit the trade of Commonwealth as well as non-Commonwealth less-developed countries. A working group of the new G.A.T.T. Committee on Trade and Development will he examining some specific proposals for further amendments to the General Agreement, particularly affecting Articles XVIII and XXIII.

Sir R. Russell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. How near are we to the two-thirds majority he mentioned?

Mr. Jay: We are not far away. I hope that it will not be too long before that result is achieved.

Following are the lists:

A. The following Governments have signed the Protocol without reservation:


Cameroon.
New Zealand.


Canada.
Nigeria.


Central African Republic.
Rhodesia.



Trinidad and Tobago.


Ceylon.
†Tunisia.


Gambia.
Turkey.


India.
Uganda.


Jamaica.
†United Arab Republic.


Kenya.



Malawi.
United States.


Mauritania.
†Yugoslavia.

B. The following Governments have signed the protocol subject to ratification or ad referendum:


†Argentina.
Italy.


Belgium.
Luxembourg.


Brazil.
Madagascar.


Chile.
Kingdom of the Netherlands.


Finland.



Federal Republic of Germany.
Niger.



Norway.


Greece.
Peru.


Israel.
Upper Volta.

C. The following Governments have not yet signed the Protocol.


Australia.
*Ivory Coast.


*Austria.
*Japan.


Burma.
Kuwait.


Burundi.
Malaysia.


Chad.
Malta.


Congo (Brazzaville).
Nicaragua.


*Cuba.
*Pakistan.


Cyprus.
*Portugal.


Czechoslovakia.
Senegal.


*Dahomey.
*Sierra Leone.


*Denmark.
South Africa.


*Dominican Republic.
*Spain.


France.
*Sweden.


Gabon.
*†Switzerland.


*Ghana.
Tanzania.


Haiti.
Togo.


†Iceland.
*United Kingdom.


*Indonesia.
*Uruguay.

D. The Declaration on the de facto implementation of the provisions of the Protocol has been assented to by all the Governments in lists A and B (except Gambia and Malawi), as well as those marked with an asterisk in list C.

N.B. The Governments marked † have only provisionally acceded to the G.A.T.T.

Crystal Palace Site

Mr. Goodhart: asked the President of the Board of Trade what support he will give to the proposal for establishing an industrial exhibition centre on the Crystal Palace site.

Mr. Jay: This proposal is being carefully considered, but it is an expensive one and cannot be settled without regard to the many other desirable proposals which make demands upon our limited national resources.

Mr. Goodhart: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything, apart from arguments about the size of the Government's financial support for this project, is holding up its implementation?

Mr. Jay: Yes. The other trouble is the financial support which is coming from other quarters. This has so far delayed the introduction of the scheme, but I very much hope that we shall be able to reach agreement.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, although it is a very good idea to have such a national exhibition and conference centre, other alternative sites have been proposed for it for which the communications are much more adequate than Crystal Palace?

Mr. Jay: There has been a great deal of discussion about this, but the general view of representative industrial organisations and experts on exhibitions is that this is the best site we have available.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that communications with the Crystal Palace site are excellent?

Mr. Lipton>: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is desirable from many points of view, including traffic problems, not to attract so many of these exhibitions to London but to have many more of them in the provinces in places easier of access?

Mr. Jay: I agree that that is desirable in itself, but we also have to consider the convenience of overseas visitors to these exhibitions.

Shipbuilding (Tankers)

Mr. McMaster: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee for special and urgent study the circumstances in which recent orders, such as those for large Shell tankers, have been placed abroad.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to encourage the building of high-capacity tankers in this country.

Mr. Mason: A number of yards in this country are equipped to build tankers of up to 200,000 deadweight tons and I see no reason to take special action or to make a specific reference to the Shipbuilding Inquiry about their failure to secure particular orders. At present our yards are proving competitive over a large range of vessels and the competitiveness of the industry in the longer term is being studied by the Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee.

Mr. McMaster: Has the hon. Gentleman read the statement of Sir Maurice Bridgman and the statement of the Deputy-Chairman of Shell? Is he satisfied that the reduced investment allowances now available to British shipowners are sufficient to encourage them to build their boats in Britain? Are not these investment allowances also available if they build their boats abroad? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the great urgency of the situation and that we cannot wait until the Geddes Committee reports to maintain the flow of orders to British shipbuilding yards?

Mr. Mason: I understood that a Question on Shell and investment allowances was posed to my right hon. Friend earlier today and he replied to it. The hon. Member should be aware why these orders went abroad. They went particularly to the Japanese as they are well-equipped to build large ships, and able to offer better designs than British shipbuilders.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the root of the problem of the tankers is that the Japanese have no huge burden of defence costs and also that on the Clyde and in other places labour is used to build ships for the Navy and the shipyards cannot get skilled labour to carry out contracts in time?

Mr. Mason: I hope that my hon. Friend is not making speeches in Scotland trying to excuse the British shipbuilding industry solely because the Japanese have no defence burden.

Mr. McMaster: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the previous Answer on investment allowances is not satisfactory? Will he deal with this particular point? Is a British shipowner not able to obtain an investment allowance if he builds abroad? What advantage therefore is it to the British shipowner if he builds in Britain?

Mr. Mason: The Question refers to shipbuilders and not shipowners. As for the investment allowance, the hon. Member will have plenty of opportunity to discuss that on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Cruelty to Children

Mr. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for cruelty to children there were in the years 1960 to 1964, respectively.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Miss Alice Bacon): The numbers of persons convicted at magistrates' courts of cruelty to children under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, were 510 in 1960, 610 in 1961, 653 in 1962 and 469 in 1963. The numbers of persons convicted at the higher courts for this offence are not known exactly but they were small. The figures for 1964 are not yet available.

Mr. Grant: Will the hon. Lady not agree that these figures are a disgrace

to a civilised community? Is she satisfied that the present law is adequate to deal with this problem?

Miss Bacon: I think that the present law is adequate but what is needed is more people to be vigilant in reporting cases of cruelty which they know to be taking place.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would the hon. Lady look into the fact that the figures which are not yet available are those for 1964 and we are now in April, 1965? The House is asking for figures which should be readily available to the hon. Lady.

Miss Bacon: I will certainly see that they are made available as soon as I get them.

Mr. Rose: Can my hon. Friend give a breakdown of cases of physical cruelty and those only of neglect?

Miss Bacon: Not without notice.

Cruelty to Animals

Mr. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for cruelty to animals there were in the years 1960 to 1964, respectively.

Miss Bacon: The figures for 1964 are not yet available. The numbers of convictions recorded in the years 1960 to 1963 are as follows: 1960–614, 1961–836, 1962–830 and 1963–852.

Mr. Grant: Will the hon. Lady agree with me that we seem to be more vigilant in bringing prosecutions for cruelty to animals than to children, or is it the case that there are many more cases of cruelty to animals than to children? Which conclusion does she draw?

Miss Bacon: It would be difficult to say which of those propositions is right but, as I said in my previous answer, it would be very much more helpful if everybody was vigilant and reported cases of cruelty to children.

Experiments on Animals

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the


conditions under which experiments are carried out on live animals; how many inspectors are employed to enforce the statutory regulations; how many complaints about cruelty have been made for each of the past five years, respectively; and what was the result of the investigations into such complaints.

Miss Bacon: I am at present studying the report of the Departmental Committee on Experiments on Animals, which deals with all aspects of this matter. Eight inspectors are employed. No statistical record is maintained of complaints received. All specific allegations are fully investigated; none has been substantiated in the last five years.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the hon. Lady, having these complaints in mind, bear in mind that the public are getting worried about cruelty to animals, and would she ensure that the number of inspectors is increased, because eight seems very little for a very vast number of experiments?

Miss Bacon: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear this in mind when he is considering the whole of the Report from the Committee. This was received by him only on 24th February this year. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said on 16th March that the Home Secretary was not yet able to say when he expects to be in a position to make any statement but he is considering this urgently, and I hope that it will not be too long delayed. We will certainly bear in mind the question of inspectors, but, of course, I cannot commit myself at the moment.

Mr. Lipton: Can my hon. Friend say when the Report, which she says was received by the Home Secretary on 24th February, is to be published, because there is very great public interest in the matter and we have been waiting for the Report a long time?

Miss Bacon: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that he will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Lady say whether R.S.P.C.A. inspectors are given any facilities or have any rights in this matter?

Miss Bacon: No, Sir. Our inspectors have a right of entry into registered places at all times, but I could not say without notice whether R.S.P.C.A. inspectors are also allowed in at any time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to table a Question.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Lady consult with her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and see whether there is not all too close a relationship between the number of thefts of dogs and cats and the readiness of the teaching hospitals in particular to take any animals for experimental purposes?

Miss Bacon: Yes, Sir. We shall certainly have that in mind. I am not sure whether or not this is dealt with in the Report which my right hon. and learned Friend has before him because I have not yet seen it.

COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it is proposed to discuss trade and aid at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting, he will propose that the dependent territories should be invited to take part in sessions on this subject.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): No, Sir: this would not be in accordance with practice. The hon. Lady may have in mind the 1962 meeting but that was quite exceptional.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this idea? I thought that it was very advantageous to the countries which were invited to discuss the question of the Common Market at the previous Conference and I understood that the Prime Minister was keen to draw the Commonwealth together. Is not this an opportunity to do so?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Colonial Ministers have come to previous Commonwealth conferences below Prime Minister level to deal with a specific point, as in 1962. If it is thought necessary that that sort


of thing should be done on this occasion no doubt my right hon. Friend will consider it, but at the moment this is a question of a Prime Ministers' Conference at Prime Minister level.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will the right hon. Gentleman press his right hon. Friend to reconsider this? This is a specific point which is particularly advantageous, namely, trade and aid to these countries which so badly need them.

Mr. Bowden: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will note the hon. Lady's Question.

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the detailed arrangements and dates for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

Mr. Bowden: All Commonwealth Heads of Government have agreed that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting should be held at Marlborough House from 17th to 25th June. I am not sure what detailed arrangements the hon. Member has in mind, but they will be on lines which have been found satisfactory in the past and similar to those made for the 1964 Meeting.

Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether' all the Heads of Government of Commonwealth countries are expected to attend in person, and what part the newly formed Commonwealth Secretariat is likely to play in this Conference?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot give any details of final acceptances, and, of course, the Conference will be confined to fully independent countries. The second matter which the hon. Gentleman raised will be discussed, but no agenda is issued.

Mr. Hooson: Has consideration been given to the possibility of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meeting in one of the other Commonwealth countries, that is, away from this country? Has the suggestion ever been put forward by this country?

Mr. Bowden: I am not in a position to say whether it has or has not under

the previous Administration, but I myself think that it is something which should be explored.

PATRONAGE SECRETARY (SPEECH)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Patronage Secretary on 13th March at the annual dinner of Vickers-Armstrong shop stewards in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, about housing, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bowden: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend on the 25th of March to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we fully understand the reluctance of "Mr. 3 Per Cent.", the First Secretary, in not answering a Question on cheaper mortgage rates? In view of the fact that mortgage interest rates are now higher than at any time in our history and mortgages are more difficult to obtain than ever before, will the Government realise that this causes real human unhappiness and will they take some action?

Mr. Bowden: I have already said on two occasions in the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is conducting a review of housing subsidies with local authority associations and will be discussing with representatives of building societies the best way in which help can be given.

Mr. Maudling: As I understand that in the speech in question it was said that legislation was in preparation to bring down interest rates "for people buying their own homes", can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that phrase means people taking out new mortgages or does it cover the whole corpus of existing borrowers?

Mr. Bowden: I think that we should await the end of the review which will be laid before Parliament.

Mr. A. Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? Is he aware that his words are cold corn-fort to those people who are trying to


set up house, in view of the grandiose promises made by his party during the election campaign?

Mr. Bowden: I fully understand that home owners may feel somewhat disturbed by the fact that mortgage rates have increased, but they have felt disturbed for a very long time. The Government have been in power six months, and this is a matter which we propose to deal with.

Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many young people voted for his party at the last election solely on the strength of this promise to lower mortgage interest? Is he aware that there is now widespread resentment throughout the country at the cynical way in which they were treated? Is this one of the election promises which the First Secretary told us the other day we might have to wait ten years to see fulfilled?

Mr Bowden: I do not think that those who voted for the Labour Party at the last election solely on this promise are quite so naive as the hon. Member. They realise that it takes time.

VIETNAM

Mr. Jackson: asked the Prime Minister to what extent, in his initiative to find a peaceful settlement of the situation in Vietnam, he has consulted the members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Bowden: We have had full and regular consultations with those Commonwealth Governments most concerned. These consultations are of a confidential nature and are still going on.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he bear in mind that Mr. Shastri, President Ayub Khan and Mr. Lester Pearson have all made most valuable comments on the Vietnam crisis, and will he agree that the closest possible co-operation between these three Commonwealth countries and ourselves could help towards a settlement of the Vietnam crisis?

Mr. Bowden: We have been in communication with India and Canada, which, as my hon. Friend knows, are members of the International Control Commission. We have also discussed the

problem with Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand, all of which are closely associated with the problem in South-East Asia. But I doubt the question of a solution is specifically one for the Commonwealth countries.

Mr. A. Royle: What success is the right hon. Gentleman hoping for from Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker's visit? All of us on this side of the House wish Mr. Gordon Walker well on his tour of the Far East, but the right hon. Gentleman did not mention him in his reply to his hon. Friend, and many people throughout the country are concerned and puzzled about how he can achieve anything if he is not to be able to visit either Peking or Hanoi.

Mr. Bowden: We still hope that it will be possible for him to visit Peking and Hanoi. He is to visit a number of other countries. As he left this country only yesterday, it is rather soon to form a judgment.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the apparent reaction of the Hanoi Government suggests that they would welcome a visit from both co-chairmen of the Geneva Conference, and could he say whether that matter might be taken into account by Mr. Gordon Walker if, or when, he visits Hanoi?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir; we shall certainly take note of that.

BRITISH TROOPS, GERMANY (COSTS)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister what progress he has made since his recent visit to Bonn with his efforts to obtain from the German Government binding commitments to offset the foreign exchange costs of British troops in Germany.

Mr. Bowden: The further discussions between my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Federal German Finance Minister which were agreed in the course of my right hon. Friend's recent visit will take place in Bonn on 10th and 11th June.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that over a month ago the Prime Minister told us that this


was to be regarded with a new urgency, and can he tell us where the sense of urgency has gone? Will he suggest to his right hon. Friend that he would be better employed attending to this than in issuing bromides on the other side of the Atlantic?

Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the last comment the hon. Gentleman makes is not acceptable by the country as a whole. On his earlier point, we appreciated that it would have been better had we been able to meet earlier. There were certain difficulties and we could not possibly arrange an earlier date. It has now been fixed.

FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (SPEECH)

Mr. Channon: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, on Saturday, 27th March at Sheffield about Commonwealth immigration represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bowden: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State on 8th April to a Question by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).

Mr. Channon: All of us regret that the First Secretary of State is unable to be here, for reasons which we all understand, but does not the Leader of the House think it most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have said in his speech in Sheffield that it was madness to consider the limitation of immigration, and was it not particularly unfortunate in view of the remarks of the Leader of the House himself and the Home Secretary in the extremely valuable debate in the House on 23rd March? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that what the Home Secretary said in winding up that debate, that there should be effective control of numbers, expressed Government policy and the remarks of the First Secretary did not?

Mr. Bowden: On 8th April my right hon. Friend the First Secretary explained in the House that he had been quoted out of context. He was not dealing with

the problem of Commonwealth immigration at all, but was dealing with the question of mobility of labour. I confirm that the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself expressed the Government's view.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Answer which I received last week seemed to contain an extraordinary paraphrase of what the First Secretary really said as reported in the Sunday papers? Is it not true that he did say that it would be madness to have further control of immigration, and, if so, is not that contrary to Government policy?

Mr. Bowden: I have already explained, as my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has, that lie was not talking about Commonwealth immigration. He was dealing with the movement of immigrants generally. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman himself has from time to time been misquoted in the Press.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ugly undertones of so many questions from the Opposition are damaging the name of Britain in the eyes of the Commonwealth, and will he say what the effect would be on our transport system and our hospitals if these people were to return?

Mr. Bowden: That is another question. This is not a question of immigration at all.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between immigration and the movement of immigrants. Can he explain that?

Mr. Bowden: In his speech my right hon. Friend the First Secretary was dealing with the importance of the movement of labour in the country from one area to another, and the point he made, I may paraphrase it—I cannot actually quote it—was that, whether people were black, white or grey, or whatever the colour of the individuals' skins might be, if there were no housing available there would probably be two or three people going for one house. That was actually contained within the speech.

Mr. Maudling: Surely, he used the term "immigration"? How can that possibly refer to the movement of labour within the country?

Mr. Bowden: As far as I am aware, the reference was to immigrants coming in from any quarter.

Mr. Blaker: On the question of mobility of labour, would not the best way to provide the extra workers which some of our industries need be not so much by further immigration as by eliminating feather-bedding within this country?

Mr. Bowden: That hardly arises out of the Question.

Mr. Channon: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

DEPUTATIONS

Mr. Peter Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister what instructions are given to Ministers as to the practice to be observed in receiving deputations.

Mr. Bowden: No special instructions are necessary.

Mr. Griffiths: As a delegation from my constituency arriving at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government at the express invitation of the Minister was met not only with gross discourtesy but with vulgar abuse, is it not necessary that some instructions be given?

Mr. Bowden: I am not aware that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends have met deputations with discourtesy. I remind the House that courtesy is a two-way traffic.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the receiving of deputations which come to advocate racialist policies?

Mr. Bowden: Not arising out of this Question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How does the vulgar abuse at this meeting compare with the vulgar abuse usually levelled at immigrants into this country?

Mr. Bowden: The Question deals with what instructions are given to Ministers.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sydney Irving.]

SCHOOL BUILDING (MINOR WORKS PROGRAMME)

12.3 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I welcome this opportunity of raising the subject of the school-building minor works programme. Compared with other fields of public investment, these minor works do not account for such a vast sum of money, but their importance to local education authorities is out of all proportion to their financial value. Thus, the fact that the total amount allocated to them in 1965–66 is less than that spent in 1964–65 will have a correspondingly highly detrimental effect on the plans and hopes of those responsible for educational building.
First, I want to make the strongest protest at the manner in which the announcement with regard to the 1965–66 minor works school building programme was made. This public relations-conscious Government attempted to give the impression that an actual cut in the amount allocated to minor works was, in fact, an increase. They tried to conceal their attack on the school improvements by such phrases as "certain administrative changes". This deceitful presentation has already provoked the justifiable protests of local government and teaching organisations throughout the country.
Week after week there are fresh examples of broken election pledges. The broken pledge with regard to this sphere is a particularly regrettable one as it will have an extremely detrimental effect upon the environments in which our children are taught.
Many a parent will recall the television broadcast of the First Secretary a few weeks before the last election, in which he said:
Our children are entitled to a full education in good schools. As a nation we can't afford to deny them this right.
But what of Labour's election manifesto? It contained such phrases as
we face critical and neglected needs such as the provision of new hospitals and schools
and
in education we are faced today with far too many scandalously outdated school buildings.


No wonder that with such a manifesto and such pronouncements by Labour Party leaders, parents throughout the country surmised that Labour intended to increase school building. Indeed, no education authority would have been surprised if its programme had been impressively enlarged.
But, instead, what has happened? The only announcement made so far by the Government about school building has been the announcement that the minor and mini-minor building programmes must be amalgamated, this resulting in a corresponding loss of freedom of manœuvre for local education authorities; and contained in the announcement was the sad news of an enforced and sharp cut in the total allocation. This is a grave disappointment. Its effect will be serious, not only in the rural areas but in the numerous towns that contain Victorian primary and secondary schools. Once again, the words, as opposed to action, of Labour spokesmen and Labour pamphlets have become apparent to a population already beginning to suffer the inadequacies of a Labour Government.
During the 13 years 1951–64 remarkable progress in school building was made. More than 6,700 new schools and 3½ million new school places were provided. In spite of a rise in the school population of 1½ million during those years, nearly half our children are in classrooms built since the war. But this is not all. As the Department of Education and Science's Report, "Education in 1964", discloses, the advances made in the later years of the Conservative administration were even greater than those made earlier.
During the year 1964, 598 new primary and secondary schools were occupied, providing more than 278,000 school places. In addition, 626 schools were in course of construction, and, on top of this again, a three-year programme, 1965–68, had been announced, totalling £200 million in all, including starts on 787 projects in the first year. This was the legacy of the Conservative Government as reported in the Ministry bulletin published in March this year. Naturally, a very high proportion of these projects were built under the major school programmes, but it is noteworthy, too, that the total value of all educational build-

ings—schools, universities, C.A.T.s. and others—doubled in less than 10 years.
But, in spite of this progress, very large problems still remain. Some of these were listed in the school building survey of 1962. We heard a great deal about this document during the General Election, but it took Labour five months to publish, and then, when it was published, the Department's Report on Education No. 18, January 1965, entitled "School Building", commented:
Many of the defects identified in the survey will by now have been remedied.
Could this sentence provide the reason why the Government thought it unnecessary to increase, unnecessary even to maintain, but necessary only to cut and amalgamate the minor and mini-minor programmes?
What I think the school building survey has served to do is to throw light, once again, on the very considerable problems and improvement still with us. In addition, with the constantly growing school population there is a never-ceasing demand for extra school places—basic needs for children who otherwise would have no school to attend.
With the minor works programme, it is possible to undertake work within both these categories. A small village school can be built for as little as £14,000 or £15,000. Basic needs can be supplied by the use of temporary hutted classrooms. A staffroom, electricity supply, small kitchens or main water supply can all be provided.
The trouble in the past was that by the time the more expensive projects within the overall limit had been budgeted for, there was very little money remaining for the smaller ones. No wonder the announcement in October, 1961, that in future local education authorities were to he given discretion on projects costing less than £2,000, was greeted with relief and acclaim by all those who for so long had been trying to extract a quart from a pint pot!
It was welcomed as a great step forward. It reduced overall administrative control and, therefore, the total of work at the Ministry. It recognised the responsible approach and efforts of the authorities, and it acted as an encouragement to those of them which were enterprising. The introduction of the mini-minor


scheme was an enlightened move by the then Conservative Minister of Education, then Sir David Eccles. But now a Labour Government have seen fit to abolish this local authority discretion and revert to former practice.
I believe that the reason why is contained in one sentence of an article written by the Minister of State for Education on 18th February in a Labour pamphlet called "This Week". He wrote:
It was distorting the distribution of capital spending between different areas—the more enterprising authorities were taking so much of the allocation this way that far too little was left for other areas with equally urgent needs.
Once again, this is the old cry of equality—legislate against the enterprising on the assumption that this will assist the slothful; level down, never level up. It is against the political prejudices of Socialism and so, once again, we see Socialism first and modernisation a poor second.
Of course, we have been given other reasons. The amount of work carried out under mini-minor programmes has grown impressively, from £1·4 million in the first six months after the announcement in 1961 to an estimated £7 million in 1964–65. This is a fine record and a feather in the cap of local authorities who have made such good use of this opportunity offered to them.
But the Minister of State has dismissed their initiative by saying—and again I quote from the publication "This Week":
This was simply a case of slipshod control by the late Government and would have had to have been put right in the coming year either in the way we have done it or by making a much more realistic assessment of the amount that authorities would spend on mini-minors.
A Conservative Government would not have done as Labour has done.
Last summer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) announced, not a limitation on minis, but rather an extension. As from 1st April, 1965, the limit of cost of these projects was to be increased to £2,500. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)

has given an undertaking that the next Conservative Government will restore the rights previously held by local authorities with regard to this type of school building.
It cannot be argued that minis place a strain on building resources, for the improvement of existing schools by means of mini works clearly does not affect in any way whatever the promotion of major building projects. It simply does not concern the larger building contractors. It involves the jobbing builder, the local plumber and the local carpenter. These men do not undertake the building of schools, but can replace the dry earth closet, or provide the hot water system.
By now the Minister must be aware of the national protest which his new regulation has generated, for he has been subjected to a steady stream of deputations from urban and rural areas, from Labour and Conservative-controlled councils, all violently against this totally unjustified, reactionary decision. But, above all, I believe that it matters because of the fact that this country is beset by the perennial problem of the shortage of teachers. It is essential that every aid is provided so that the teachers available can make the best use of their skills in an environment conducive to the children receiving the greatest possible benefit.
Minor and mini-minor works can do a great deal to improve the environment, and they have done so. Particularly is this true in the rural areas, where often four or five separate improvements at four or five separate schools can all be carried out at a total cost of less than £2,000. But proportionately the effect of these very small improvements on village schools is far in excess of their monetary value. I trust that the Minister will not attempt to argue that these projects are still possible within the minor works allocation. How can they be when the allocations are so small?
During 1964–65, a total of almost £22 million was spent nationally on the minor and mini-minor programmes together. Having regard to increases in building costs, as well as a progressive rate of increase of mini-minor expenditure, it has been estimated that this year


expenditure would have been about £23½ million. The Government have allowed £21 million. Thus those small improvements so advantageous and so helpful must be cut from authorities programmes as a result of Labour meanness.
In my own County of Wiltshire, in 1964–65, the total amount spent on the combined programmes was £250,000. For the coming year, the county council budget provision was £325,000, a reasonable increase. But the total amount allocated by the Labour Government is £210,000, £115,000 less than the budgeted figure and £40,000 less than the previous year. This is in a county where numerous schools are in need of urgent improvements. I have checked on the position in other counties and other education authorities and found that many are as badly if not more affected than the County of Wiltshire.
Many of my constituents have reminded me of the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government, then Labour's spokesman on education, when, in a party political television broadcast on 5th October last, he referred to the fact that the Conservative Government had not allowed every pound requested by local authorities for school building programmes. He said:
I call that rationing, even if another name is used today.
After six months of a Labour Government, we are not just being rationed, but we are having our rations substantially reduced. On the one hand, Government action has resulted in a sharp rise in building costs; it has raised the Bank Rate to 7 per cent.; it has increased the National Insurance contribution; it has increased the petrol tax and increased company taxation. On the other hand, the Government have drastically reduced the amount to be spent on building improvement.
If this is Labour planning, it is planning against the interests of our children. I implore the Government to reconsider this whole question and, instead of reducing the amount to be spent on school improvements, to decide to increase substantially this sphere of expenditure, for this is an investment vital to the future of the nation.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) has shown very conclusively how the minor works programme for school building for this year has been literally murdered. He mentioned the intention to raise the mini-minor works level from £2,000 to £2,500 if there had been a Tory Government. Instead, it has been abolished. The effects have been disastrous. My hon. Friend said that the result would be a reduction for the coming year compared with last year. There has been a reduction this year compared with the year before from £21 million to £21·1 million. One might say that that is only a reduction of £100,000. But, in fact, the position is much worse.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science gave me the figures on 18th March in reply to a Question. Leaving out the voluntary schools, teacher training and the special services, local education authorities' expenditure for the year before last, last year and the current year are £18·24 million, £18·61 million and £17·15 million respectively—a severe reduction of £l½ million compared with last year and a £1 million reduction compared with the year before.
My hon. Friend mentioned the deputations. I was particularly unlucky because I took part in a deputation to the Minister of State in December before this cut was announced. We then pleaded with the Minister for a very substantial increase in our minor works programme. He agreed—or I certainly understood him to agree—that it was very necessary that Hertfordshire should have an increase. Instead, we have suffered a reduction. Compared with Hertfordshire, Wiltshire is rolling in riches. We have had a cut of more than 30 per cent. I tabled a Question to the Minister asking what other counties had had a cut of as much as 30 per cent. He could not tell me, so the position must be pretty desperate. Hertfordshire is not alone in this.
Our minor works programme has been cut from £560,000 last year to £380,000 this year. We were confidently expecting and planned for a substantial increase over the figure of £560,000 for last year. Instead, in February, Hertfordshire learned that it was to take a 30 per cent.


Cut. All sorts of projects must be cancelled at the last minute. Some of these mini-minor works are very important. For example, at the Tring primary school over 200 children are taking meals from a kitchen equipped for 100 children. The proposal was to provide a servery to help with the problem. This would have come under the mini-minor works scheme. Under the Minister's programme, it will not be possible to do anything this year and probably for years ahead. However, I am glad to say that Hertfordshire, with its usual skill as a really progressive authority, got the contract signed before 31st March and it will come into last year's Budget. Happily, this problem has been solved. But there are other schools which are facing a very serious situation.
It is most regrettable that the Minister has not even "come clean" and admitted that he is making a cut. This is a very severe cut. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has raised this matter so that we might have the opportunity of discussing it.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I should like briefly to support what my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) and Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) have said. The mini-minor programmes are an outstanding example of a little money making all the difference. New classrooms, lavatory facilities, new kitchens and things of this kind can make an immense contribution to an old crowded school which cannot come within the major building programme perhaps for some years. This cut is a great blow to modest but essential improvements and to the freedom and initiative of local education authorities.
This is Maundy Thursday, and I should be charitable. I can quite see that the Government might perhaps have had to say that, in view of the substantial increase in the mini-minor works programme during the last few years, they had this year to moderate the increase in the programme. But to impose a cut of over £2 million is extremely harsh and it is playing havoc with the programmes which local education authorities have already worked out.
My hon. Friends have referred to the effect of the cut on their counties. I can

assure the House that the effect on Somerset is equally severe. We have been allocated less than half the amount that we wanted. Programmes have had to be scrapped and worked out again. Expectations for improvements have been widely disappointed. The allocation for this year is only £180,000, less than half the amount which the Somerset education authority was planning to spend. This compares with £350,000 and £264,000 spent in the previous two years. This allocation is no more than the allocation of five years ago. It means that a smaller programme will have to be undertaken than five years ago because of the rise in building costs.
This is immensely serious to Somerset for two very good reasons. First, the school population is growing at a much faster rate than the national average, owing partly to people moving in from other parts of the country and partly to natural increase. The birth rate in Somerset for the last two years has exceeded the peak of 1947. The second reason why this is immensely serious is that the school building survey showed that the South-West as a region has more children in old schools than any other region. The figure is 57 per cent.
I therefore strongly urge the Minister to think again and to thump the table at the Treasury a little harder. He should at least maintain this year the level of last year's expenditure on minor and mini-minor works.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: This has, unfortunately, to be a brief debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), with his concern for education, his knowledge and his past experience as a county chairman of an education committee, has put the facts before the House in an admirable speech. Let us have it clear right from the start that there has been a cut. I hope that the Minister of State will not today seek to conceal this. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, the earlier attempt to pretend otherwise was rather discreditable, and I hope that it will not be repeated.
Sir William Alexander, writing in "Education" in February, said as follows:
Most unfortunately, they"—


The Government—
seem to be concerned to misrepresent the facts and to suggest that they are not cutting but actually increasing the allocation for minor works. Let it therefore be stated bluntly that less money will be spent on minor works in 1965–66 than in 1964–65 by reason of Her Majesty's Government's decision.
That, I hope, is accepted.
The Leader of the House said at one point that the allocation was being increased and we had the rather servile little Motion signed by Labour back benchers also seeking to conceal the cut and to whitewash Government action. Incidentally, it is rather remarkable that not one Labour back bencher is present for this debate today.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): The hon. Member and his hon. Friends keep using the word "allocation" and discussing whether there is a cut or an increase. Would he agree that the allocation for the 1964–65 year was £18 million, that the allocation for the next year is £21 million, and that this is an increased allocation of £3 million?

Mr. Chataway: I shall come presently to the point that troubles the hon. Gentleman. The fact is—and he will not deny this—that estimated expenditure on minor works for 1964–65 is £21·85 million. The hon. Gentleman must not shake his head, because that was an Answer given to me by him and his Department. That is estimated expenditure for 1964–65. Estimated expenditure for 1965–66 is £21 million. On the lowest estimate, therefore, the amount by which the minor works have been cut is £850.000.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government's decision caused real distress in the education world. It will mean particularly the withdrawal of freedom to local education authorities to spend on mini-minor works. It will mean that modernisation of many of the worst and oldest schools will be stopped. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes gave the figures for his own county. Others of my hon. Friends have given figures for Hertfordshire and for Somerset. There are many others which I could give. I have a letter from Kent giving a most distressing picture of what the cut is likely to mean in that county. In the few minutes that remain to me, however,

I do not want to repeat figures which will be known to the Minister of State.
I want the hon. Gentleman to understand the depth of feeling which exists about this matter. Hon. Members opposite would understand it better if they were to look back over the yawning chasm that now divides present Government education policy from Labour Party pre-election promises. They must understand that it does not relate only to school building. University students are rightly disgruntled at the way their reminders of Labour's pre-election promises to abolish the means test on grants are brushed aside.
We on this side always said before the election, and we still say, that the means test should not be abolished in the years immediately ahead, but many students thought that Labour speakers meant what they said. So did hundreds of people in the adult education world. For all the massive promises of the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Minister of Land and Natural Resources and the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, the grant is smaller this year than the average annual grant over the last ten years. It is no wonder, therefore, that the National Institute for Adult Education and others are somewhat disillusioned.
Last May, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government held a Press conference to announce official Labour policy on teacher-training. He said that on this issue the Labour Party found itself divided from the Robbins Committee and that
We propose to bring forward to the years 1965–1970 the increase in training which the Government has postponed until 1969–74.
It is important to remember that that was a Press conference announcing a formal statement of Labour Party policy after a high-powered study group had looked at the problems of teacher-training. It was a solemn declaration of party policy.
In office, the Government have done nothing of the kind. Instead, they have rather quickly produced a target for 1973–74 in advance of the recommendations of the Advisory Council and they have picked about the lowest figure they could for 1973. We will not say whether


it is right or wrong until we see the Report of the Advisory Council. All that can be said is that it bears no relation to the statement of party policy given last May.
Again, there was hardly an election speech by Labour candidates, from the Prime Minister downwards, which did not promise vastly increased pay to teachers. Now, negotiations have broken down on an offer of £43 million, which, in real terms, is just slightly less than the Eccles 1961 award of £42 million, about which the party opposite made impassioned speeches for the following four years. It is somewhat ironic that the figures should be almost identical. The present Government may well be thankful that they now have a sensible arbitration machinery, thanks to the action of their Conservative predecessors. I for one hope that that arbitration machinery will produce a settlement that will be satisfactory to both sides.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) said, it is Maundy Thursday, and I, too, feel the need to be charitable. I am bound to say in fairness to education Ministers that this startling contrast between present performance and pre-election promise is not confined to their Department. There probably never has been a Government in this country which bought a small majority with such a reckless spate of promises. In no field, however, were the promises more prolific than in relation to school building. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has given examples.
I hope that when he defends himself today, the Minister of State will not defend the cut in minor works by boasting that he has not also cut the Conservative major building programme. That has been the line taken in one or two speeches made by the hon. Gentleman and by the Secretary of State. To hear them, one would sometimes think that they had fought the election on the Conservative education plans. One would think that they had gone to the electorate, pointed to the £300 million school-building programme that had been successfully carried through during the last Parliament and argued that the further increase to £80 million annual programmes from 1965 was a reasonable

advance. Of course, hon. Members opposite did absolutely nothing of the kind.
I will give just one example. At Question Time on 7th May last year, I suggested that the Labour Party were not committed to higher building programmes than the then Government for 1965–68. The present Minister of Land and Natural Resources, who was then the official spokesman on education for the party opposite, jumped to the Dispatch Box to say:
The Parliamentary Secretary"—
that was myself—
should know that he is quite wrong. We have discussed the school building programme in previous debates and made quite clear that we regard the present Government programme as wholly unsatisfactory and inadequate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1964; Vol. 694. c. 1442.]
That was a reference to the present 1965–68 building programmes.
It is against this background of what one must call really wholesale vote purchase that we discuss the minor works cut today. There are three excuses that the Minister of State has given in the past that I hope we shall not hear again. The first is the threadbare balance of payments argument. The decision to slow down school improvements has nothing to do with the Government's organised financial panic of last autumn or with the run on the £ that was then precipitated. Mini-minor works really are not paid for in American dollars or German marks. The Minister of State will know this.
I hope, in this connection, that the hon. Gentleman will not suggest that in 1961–62 there was a general cut-back on education because of an economic crisis. This is a suggestion which one sees made. I notice, incidentally, that it is made by one of Labour's supporters who writes the Peter Quince column in this week's "Teacher". It is worth recalling that education expenditure at the time of the economic crisis 1961–62 went up in a year from £943 million to £1,084 million. an increase of nearly 15 per cent., because this is a general line of argument that is too often wildly advanced from the benches opposite.
Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to justify this action on the ground that local education authorities have been tackling their mini-minor


works programmes with growing efficiency and eagerness. Of course expenditure on mini-minor works has been rising. Of course, they spent more in the past year than was expected. If we give freedom to local education authorities to get on with jobs costing less than £2,000, we have to recognise that any estimate that we make of their expenditure is bound to be a guess.
I think that it might have been reasonable, in the face of this growing expenditure, not to increase the sum allocated to minor works costing between £2,000 and £20,000; but to withdraw the freedom to carry through the smallest jobs is a very serious blow to the schools, and, as my hon. Friends have said, will be a particularly serious blow to the older primary schools, many of which face no prospect of complete rebuilding for many years to come.
Thirdly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not reproduce the rather bogus egalitarian argument to which my hon. Friend referred. It is just not true that the more enterprising authorities who do a lot of small jobs of this kind thereby necessarily reduce the resources available to other authorities. The small local firm which does this sort of job simply is not large or mobile enough to do the same work in another authority's area. It is sheer nonsense to argue that the freedom to do mini-minor works distorts the distribution of capital spending.
Rather than repeat any of those excuses, I hope that the Minister of State will address himself to the problem that is left. Having sold the pass on mini-minor works, the Government cannot, I appreciate, for this year, introduce mini-minor works freedom for jobs under £2,000. What I want to urge is that freedom be given below some figure, say £1,000. There are, I think, the strongest administrative arguments for this, quite apart from the fact that without some such dispensation there to be, as chief education officers have stressed, a halt to many school improvements, and enormous frustration. At present, anything that is in the nature of improvement is capital expenditure. That means that the smallest improvement has to go through the elaborate procedure of getting into a mini-works programme. If there is to be a new

washbasin where there has not been one before, it has to get into the mini-works programme. If there is to be a new lavatory fitting where there was not one before, it has to get into the mini-works programme. The installation of the most modest little hot water system has to get into the mini-works programme.
Those jobs make no calls on the building industry. They are carried out by the sort of firms which do the decorating, maintenance and repairs for which authorities still have freedom, because they are not capital expenditure. To quote Sir William Alexander again, he says that a job of this kind
does not involve the architect's department; it does not involve the kind of contractors who are concerned with major projects. It involves the local plumber and local joiner, who do not undertake building schools, but who can replace dry closets.
This is an important consideration, and I urge the Minister of State to think very carefully about it and to set a limit—I have suggested one as low as £1,000—below which local education authorities should have freedom of action. If the limit were as low as £1,000, it should not he necessary even to estimate the expenditure and to calculate it in distributing the total minor works figure.
We have wanted today to register some of the deep disappointment that there has been over the Government's action with regard to minor works. This will, I think, have been an extremely valuable debate if the Minister of State agrees to the modest proposals which I have put to him. This is, I suggest, an opportunity to relieve some of the frustrations which have been caused by the Government's decision in February both to cut the total minor works allocation, and to reduce the freedom for local authorities to spend under £2,000. Some action is needed, and the proposals which I have put to the hon. Gentleman would, I believe, be of real value to local education authorities in the short term.

12.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): At the end of his remarks the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) said that this would be a


valuable debate if I dealt with certain matters in my speech. I do not think that he intended to imply that it had not been a valuable debate so far, but, in fact, it has not. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have raised a serious matter, but they have not tackled it seriously. What they have been attempting to do is to take up this new pose, which they have been trying so desperately to take up during the last week of a new militant Opposition, and they are scraping the barrel for any issues which they think will help them to attain that end.
The problem of minor works is of real importance, but, because of the way in which it has been presented to the House this morning the issue has been distorted beyond all recognition. It is nauseating—and I think that people outside the House who care about education will take the same view—that these crocodile tears have been shed by the party opposite who presided over us for so many years with such complacency, and without regard for the parlous state of school building.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North spoke not only about school building, but about other election promises which, he said, we had broken. He said that we had broken a promise to take students grants out of the means test procedure. If he looks at the Labour Party's election manifesto, he will see that there is no mention there of taking students' grants out of that procedure. Many of us on this side of the House, myself included, are on record since October last as saying that we would like to take them out of the means test procedure, but the hon. Gentleman will not find that it was included in our list of priorities to be dealt with in a five-year period of office; so I think that the allegation made by the hon. Gentleman should he nailed straightaway.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the teacher training programme. He will be aware that we have announced an expansion of teacher training colleges which amounts to almost doubling the numbers in colleges in eight years, accepting the recommendations of the Robbins Committee which the late Government has not accepted by the time they went out of office.
The hon. Gentleman attacked us for being mean about teachers' pay. I would not want to comment on this in detail, because the matter has gone to arbitration, but I must point out that the offer was one of 12½ per cent., way outside the norm of incomes which has been recognised as the basis for the price review body. The hon. Gentleman said that it was a good thing that there was now arbitration to settle these matters. He will be aware that during 13 years of Conservative government there was no arbitration to settle them. It has existed only during the last few weeks, since the Royal Assent was given to the Remuneration of Teachers Bill, introduced by the Government in the autumn.
I could go on giving examples of what has been done. If we are to have a debate on education, let us have a serious debate on the real issues.
One of the most extraordinary accusations made by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) was that it took us five months to publish the school building survey. He will be aware that the school building survey relates to 1962. He will also be aware that the late Government refused, over a very long period, to publish it at all, and had no intention of publishing it because it was embarrassing to them in view of their record in office.
I take that as the starting point in a discussion on minor works. In this country, in round figures, we have about 29,000 schools. Taking the 1962 figures, which have been improved slightly since, but only slightly, in round figures 17,000 of those schools were found to have sanitation mainly out of doors. Approximately 6,000 of these schools have no central heating, 9,000 have no staff rooms and between 10,000 and 11,000 have seriously substandard sites.
This parlous state of school building was inherited by us after years of Conservative neglect. I can well understand that people who care about education —people on education committees and teachers' organisations, and so on—will nag and prod us, as a Government, as they did our predecessors, for larger building programmes. But it does not come well from hon. Members opposite, after we have been in office for about six months, to make the kind of speeches to


which we have listened this morning. The minor works programme must be seen in its proper contexts. It must be seen, first, in the context of the grave economic crisis that we inherited from the last Government—the crisis that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North rejected as "a threadbare argument about the balance of payments". I can only say that there is nothing threadbare about a balance of payments deficit running at about £800 million a year.
Secondly, we inherited from the late Government an increased school-building programme. If the hon. Member wants to do so, he is welcome to take credit for that. It is true that in the last 12 months or so before the election took place, and with the election expected at any time, the late Government decked out their window for the election. The hon. Member said that we fought the election on their education programme. What happened was that in the last year they moved closer to what we had been advocating for many years, and announced an increase in school-building. They made a very big increase in the major school-building programme, from the rate of approximately £60 million a year at which it had been running to a new rate of £80 million a year. This was long overdue, but was, nevertheless, a substantial increase. But it was an increase which depended, as all the other promises did—in regard to hospitals, road building and the rest—on the country's attaining a rate of economic growth which it had never had in 13 years under a Conservative Government.
In that context it was a reckless programme. Nevertheless, despite the economic crisis, we have maintained it, and I say deliberately that a Conservative Government, bearing in mind their past record, would have cut these programmes, faced with the balance of payments deficit. We have stuck to them and have not cut any of them.

Mr. Chataway: It is wrong for the Minister to say that this was a reckless programme when every Labour speech throughout last year was to the effect that it was totally inadequate, and that it had to be increased. Does the hon. Member recall that total educational capital expenditure rose last April from £90 million to £200 million and that this

increase in school building was on a par, and certainly not out of scale with, the increase in capital expenditure on education that had been taking place over many years?

Mr. Prentice: What I am saying is that for many years the school-building programme was completely inadequate. We asked for more. I also say that the total programme of social investment, including school building and other matters, announced towards the end of 1964, was reckless in the sense that the country could afford it only if it had a growth rate of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. a year over many years. This was far in excess of the rate that had been achieved in economic terms by the previous Government for 13 years.
We said that with proper planning the economy could grow faster, so that we could afford better school building and hospital programmes and the rest, but that with the Conservative Government's record the increases they announced were reckless. That distinction was made quite clear by the Chancellor, in many speeches. He said that whereas we stood by these bigger programmes, we thought that they were reckless in the sense that the Conservative Government had neglected economic problems for so long that these programmes had to be judged as pre-Election window dressing.

Sir Edward Boyle: The hon. Member suggested just now that had the Conservative Party won the Election these programmes may have been cut, in view of the economic situation. In fact they had been almost fully authorised. The 1955–56 programme had been virtually fully authorised, and a large part of the 1966–67 programme had been authorised. Therefore, there could be no question of any Government's going back on programmes the details of which had been indicated to the various authorities.

Mr. Prentice: It has been known in the past for programmes which had already been authorised to be spread over a longer period. I cannot give the dates, but this happened at one stage in relation to school building when Lord Eccles was the Minister, and there have been many occasions of this kind under Conservative Governments.
It is within that context that I come to the minor works programme. Even within this increased programme the figures that we inherited from the late Government were, for the year 1964–65, a minor works programme of £18 million, which was to be increased in 1965–66 to £19 million. That figure had not been announced, but in view of the discussions that have gone on, and the way in which the word "cut" has been thrown around in discussions on the matter, it is fair for me to say, as I have said previously in answer to Questions, that the figure we found to have been authorised by our predecessors was for a £19 million programme for 1965–66, and because we regard minor works as so vital, and because they are essential to the kind of deficiencies in schools that hon. Members have referred to this morning, we increased that figure to £21 million, in spite of the economic situation that we inherited. I believe that an increase in this context is something which we are entitled to say reflects some credit upon us as a Government.

Mr. Chataway: I do not want to trespass upon the time of my right hon. Friend, but the Minister must not use the figure of £19 million. He knows that a new Government have no authorised access to the papers that relate to the previous Government's decisions. I hope that he will accept it from me that no final decision had been taken about minor works for 1965–66, and whatever £19 million figure he may have found it did not represent a final decision.

Mr. Prentice: That sounds very much like an attempt to justify this extraordinary claim that is made that we have cut the Conservative Party's programme.
I have told the House what the previous Government's programme was. We are told that it might not have been final, and might have been increased if they happened to have won the election. I know, and I have said, that the figure that the late Government had in mind was £19 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. Withdraw."] I do not intend to withdraw what I have said. So much has been said to attack us and to distort what we have done that I think that I have the right to fight back, and I am going to do so. This is very relevant.
Compared with the £18 million for last year and the £19 million plan for the coming year, £21 million is an increase, and not a cut. We are told by hon. Members opposite, quite fairly, that what was spent in 1964–65 exceeded £18 million. In other words, hon. Members opposite are trying to make political capital out of their mistakes. Having said that the allocation was £18 million, and having devised a system of control which broke down, they were faced with a situation in which the £18 million was probably exceeded by about £4 million—although the final returns are not in—so that £22 million was spent. Hon. Members opposite are trying to take credit, and are suggesting that we have cut their allocation.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North and the hon. Member for Devizes both said that the allocation was cut. The allocation last year was £18 million, or £3 million less than our allocation of £21 million. This is a complex subject, and people always get fogged about the distinction between mini-minor works and minor works, but that is no excuse for the Tory Party's trying to extract political advantage from a discrepancy of this kind.
I wish to deal for a moment with the mini-minor situation. Of course, it was welcomed by local authorities in 1961 when they were told that the so-called mini-minor jobs—those valued at less than £2,000—could be carried out with-
out being counted in the local authority allocation. This policy would have been very sound if the mini-minor works had been "off the ration" nationally as well as locally; if there had been minor works allocations to each authority for the jobs under £20,000, and then they had been given freedom to do the jobs under £2,000 and amounts under £2,000 discarded altogether in assessing the minor works programme.
That would have been a freedom to be valued, but it was never the case. The discrepancy arose from the fact that although local authorities had freedom to spend what they wished out of their allocation on projects costing less than £2,000, that amount had to be taken off the minor works programme nationally. Every year the Government had to assess how much would be spent and take that off the programme.
This is the thing which has broken down. Enterprising local authorities like those in Wiltshire, Herts and Somerset have made the maximum possible use of the mini-minor concession and plan to make an even greater use of it next year. Had I been a member of an education authority—as I was at one time before these things happened—I should have urged my authority to make the maximum use of this concession. Of course, it was a good thing, and, looking back, I am glad that extra educational work was carried out which was never intended to be done by the late Government. The simple fact remains that this amount had to be taken as realistically as possible off the total allocation for minor works.
This was the dilemma facing us when we had to consider the matter this year. We have been assured this morning that the former Government would not have removed the mini-minor concession. In other words, they would have allowed this system to continue. We had confirmed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) at Question Time that this would have been their intention. In other words, they left us with a £19 million minor works programme from which, I imagine, they would have taken £4 million for voluntary schools or some figure like that, leaving £15 million. Then they would have to have taken from that a realistic assessment of the mini-minor works expenditure and that having grown in a way in which it had, and reached something like £7 million in 1964–65, I believe an estimate of £9 million would have been fairly real, perhaps an underestimate.
If we take £9 million away, there would have been £6 million left out of their figure to allocate for all the rest of the minor works over the whole of England, for jobs from £2,000 to £20,000, with the most disastrous effect on the school building situation. As it is, out of our £21 million, having taken £4 million for the voluntary schools, we have allocated £17 million in total to the authorities. For example, the allocation to Wiltshire is £210,000 compared with the £120,000 last year. That is a comparison in the allocation. The hon. Member kept referring to allocations, but the allocation for Wiltshire is up from £120,000 to £210,000, and the allocation

for Somerset is up from £120,000 to £180,000.
If these allocations had had to be contained within a total minor works allocation of £6 million they would have been at a derisory figure. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to shake their heads. They have told the House that they would not have taken away the mini-minor works concession. What would they have done? They would have had to make a realistic estimate. They could not have cheated the Treasury about this, even had they wanted to, because the Treasury would not have allowed them to do so. With a figure of £7 million or £9 million the basis of my argument is not altered very much. There would have been a derisory amount left for minor works building as a whole.

Sir E. Boyle: I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what we would have done. To the £4 million figure for aided schools we should have added, say, £8 million for mini-minor work. We should have realised that £19 million was insufficient for the total. The total of last year's allocations to authorities was £11 million. On the figures of the previous year, clearly the minimum justifiable total for the minor works programme for this year would be £22 million or £23 million. We should have accepted that in the light of the promise made by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State at the A.E.C. conference last year.

Mr. Prentice: I was coming on to the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman.
It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we have no right to compare our allocation with what the previous Government did. We have to assume that they would have had a further death-bed repentance after the General Election, which is unlikely because most death-bed repentances take place before and not after an election. This would have meant a much larger allocation than the figures we are talking about here. I do not see what evidence there is for that and I am entitled to assume that the figure to be spent on minor works was the one to which I have referred. The dilemma would have remained for any Government about what to do regarding mini-minor works in view of the way in


which the whole thing was being distorted.
This distortion argument was dismissed by the hon. Member for Devizes as "phoney equalitarianism", but we are talking here about schools and children. A larger and larger slice of the minor works building was going to meet costs of job under £2,000. Therefore, by definition a smaller amount was available for projects costing from £2,000 to £20,000. Because enterprising local authorities, such as the ones represented in this debate, were making a bigger use of it, less money would be available for other and less enterprising local authorities whose needs were equal in terms of school building and children. Any Government must have control over the amount of capital expenditure. Any Government have to disappoint the expectations of local education authorities. The previous Government allowed the local authorities an average of about one-third of what was asked for in minor works every year. Of course, there had to be some decision of priorities throughout the country.
I acknowledge right away that the decision caused disappointment. I have received a number of deputations on this matter from local authority associations and other interested bodies in recent months. Having had the facts of the situation and the figures put before them, responsible persons dealing or taking part in any deputation, while regretting the need to bring the mini-minor works within the allocation, have agreed that we had made the right choice. They hope for larger minor work allocations in the future, but, having considered the matter and heard all the arguments, they have not disagreed with our decision in the difficult choice which had to be made.
They are entitled to ask for more, but I resent the way in which the hon. Members opposite, this morning and over recent weeks, have referred to this matter. I have seen the pamphlet, written by a "hack" in the Conservative Central Office, referring to the "cuts" we made and that sort of thing. I resent the way in which hon. Members opposite have tried to make a political issue out of this. Their record on school building

does not bear examination. We have done better than they were doing. We are going along with a further minor works programme bigger than the one on which they decided, and, while people outside are entitled to demand that we do better, it does not rest with hon. Members opposite to take the "phoney" stand which they have taken in this debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. We must be fairer to each other in the allocation of time.

AID FOR INDIA

1.9 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: As I was responsible, to some extent, for the last debate going on a little over time, I will try to make up some of that time by being briefer in discussing this subject than I had otherwise intended to be.
I raise the topic of economic aid for India because during the Christmas Recess I spent three weeks in Delhi, partly to attend a Commonwealth conference and partly on a private visit, entirely unofficial, but sponsored by the Overseas Development Institute, to the Indian Planning Commission. I should like, at the start, to say how greatly I enjoyed that visit, and how greatly I appreciated the courtesy which I was shown, in particular by the Indian Planning Commission. I had talks with 27 separate people during my stay in Delhi, beginning with the vice-chairman of the Planning Commission. I am extremely grateful for all the facilities and the help which was shown to me during my time in Delhi.
I think that any visitor must be impressed with the work of the Planning Commission, and not least with the work of the Perspective Planning Division within the Commission, which has been fairly described in the Economic Times of India as
something unique in the non-communist world".
To set the scene, if one looks back at the record of the first three five-year plans, since 1950 in India, one is aware both of achievements and of disappointments. There is sometimes in the British Press a tendency to concentrate too much on


the disappointments, at the expense of the achievements. If one looks back over the whole period since 1950 and takes the initial index as 100, the index of industrial production is now 236, the index of agricultural production 151, national income per head has gone up
27½ per cent. Government spending on social and developmental services has gone up by nearly 2 billion dollars. The rate of net investment has risen from 5 per cent. of the national income to 14 per cent., and the rate of domestic savings has increased from 5 per cent. to 11·5 per cent. Twenty-seven million more people are employed, and the number of children attending schools has risen by nearly 44 million.
All those are undoubtedly impressive achievements. At the same time, no one can doubt the very serious problems with which India is still faced. There is, first of all, their very serious continuing food problem. Food prices rose on the average by 45 per cent. between 1961 and 1964. India's foreign debt during the same period since 1950 has risen by 2·3 billion dollars, foreign exchange is still short and industrial capacity is still seriously underutilised for want of imports, spares, components and raw materials in many sections. With respect, I think that many critics of Indian planning in this country greatly underrate two things. The first is the enormous difficulties of central planning in a democracy where there is a strong tradition of free criticism both in Press and Parliament; and, secondly, the intense difficulty caused by the continuing foreign exchange shortage, which drastically reduces the freedom of action of the Government as a whole, of industry and everyone else.
I mention this to all who think that by means of a dramatic dash to freedom India can solve all her problems. It is not as simple as that. Where a licence is given for, say, a fertiliser factory, this means that there is a reasonable expectation that the Government will import the necessary rock phosphates, but, because of the continuing shortage of foreign exchange, licensing always tends to run six months ahead of these foreign exchanges facilities. The day-to-day problem of economic management and planning is like a jigsaw in which one will never have all the pieces to hand. Let all critics remember that in

a developing country with severe foreign exchange difficulties, an increase in demand does not evoke automatically increased supply. It must shoot up prices and there is no automatic means of causing production to rise because of the very severe shortages.
Besides this problem of the continuing shortage of foreign exchange, there is of course a considerable backlog, during the first three Plan periods, of about 12 million people unemployed. The income per head is still very low and I sympathise with those in India who hope that sight will never be lost of the target of a minimum income of 20 rupees per month set down by the Perspective Planning Division for 1975–76. I do not believe that that target can be fufilled quite by that year, but it is a perfectly right and realistic target to go for. One must never forget just how low down India is on the scale of income per head. Then of course there is the rise in the population of 2·8 per cent., to which I shall be referring again.
I should like to look at the general achievements in the earlier Plans. In the period of the First Plan, national income rose by 18 per cent., surpassing the target of 12 per cent. During the period of the Second Plan the national income rose by a smaller figure than the target figure, but, taking the decade 1951 to 1961 as a whole, there was a considerable increase in per capita income. The Third Plan has run into greater problems. Progress in the first two years has been very slow; it was better in the third and fourth years of the period, but still not good enough.
The growth in the national income, as against the target of 5 per cent. a year, was only 2½ per cent. in 1961–62. It was under 2½ per cent. in 1962–63, it will be a little over 4 per cent. in 1963–64 and possibly in 1964–65, will have reached 6½ per cent. But during the period of the Third Plan considered as a whole, the average annual rate of growth will be only 4 per cent., as compared with the desired 5 per cent. The main disappointment has been in agriculture. Industrial production, though falling short of the target of 11 per cent., has reached an average of 8 per cent. Investment programmes should be largely completed, except for some short-fall in the private sector.
Now one comes to consider the prospects for the Fourth Plan. I shall not attempt to describe the very elaborate procedure which has to be gone through when a new plan is due. As one might expect, the precise relationships between the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Finance, and the extent to which the Plan is a directive which is followed in detail, as opposed just to laying down broad guide lines, are complicated matters, with which I shall not attempt on this occasion to trouble the House.
But, looking at the basic targets of the Fourth Plan, one sees that they are fairly simple, namely, to increase the national income overall by 6½ per cent. a year, which means a growth rate of 5 per cent. in agriculture and 11 per cent. in industry. By the time the end of the Third Plan period has been reached, India will have achieved an average annual income per head of 72 dollars, as compared with the target of 82 dollars. The aim of the Fourth Plan is to raise real average annual incomes to about 87 dollars a head.
I shall next deal with the investment target. Here I must express myself in terms of the rather unhandy Indian currency units. The Third Plan total outlay is estimated at 11,600 crores of rupees. For the benefit of hon. Members, I might explain that 500 crores equals approximately a billion dollars. The Fourth Plan total outlay will amount to 22,500 crores of rupees, of which just under 13,000 will be public sector investment and 7,000 will be private sector investment. The gap is made up by current outlay, that is, new items of current public expenditure which are included in the overall plan total.
This means a huge increase on the Third Plan. Nearly half the public sector investment projects are State projects. This will, of course, involve a considerable increase in India's savings effort. On the declared assumptions of no rise in deficit finance and little increase in net external assistance, much is bound to depend on the Government achieving large revenue surpluses through additional taxation. Taxation will have to rise much more than the expected growth in income. No one

should underrate the tremendous burden which India is prepared to put on herself in order to achieve this very large increase in the desired outlay for the Fourth Plan—with very greatly increased rates of investment and many additional items of current outlay, also.
The Fourth Plan assumes that foreign aid will be maintained at the level achieved during the Third Plan period. This is qualified by a hope that the increase in debt servicing which will arise during the period of the Fourth Plan will be somehow refinanced. In the Third Plan period, India will have received 5 billion dollars gross, or 4 billion dollars net of repayments; but for the period of the Fourth Plan five billion dollars gross, because of the increased burden of repayments, will mean only 2½ billion dollars net.
A large proportion of that 2½ billion dollars will be due to the World Bank and Consortium members. My own belief is that the donor nations ought to try to maintain the same net level of aid to India for the Fourth Plan period, particularly bearing in mind the enormous burden of effort which India is prepared to make internally during this time. I believe that, if possible, gross aid should rise during the Fourth Plan period from 5 billion to 6 billion dollars.
Exports are running at 800 crores of rupees, which is 6 per cent. of the national income, and they are forecast to rise by about 5 per cent. a year during the period of the Fourth Plan.
May I comment especially on agriculture, because we must realise the crucial importance for the Fourth Plan of the growth target of 5 per cent. for agriculture. There has been a set-back during the past three years. The weather has played the largest part, but almost everyone to whom I spoke agreed that there had also been policy shortcomings. I believe it is a great mistake to be too pessimistic about Indian agriculture in the future. There is a very considerable increase planned in the fertiliser programme. During the Third Plan the target for nitrogenous fertilisers is about 800,000 tons, and I think that India is likely actually to achieve half-a-million tons. For the Fourth Plan the target is 2 million tons of nitrogenous fertiliser and


1½ million tons of other nutrients, which is a big increase, although I know that Mr. John Lewis, to whom I had the pleasure of speaking while I was in Delhi, Clinks that, even so, this is not quite high enough.
Nevertheless, there is a very big increase in the fertiliser programme. The demand for fertilisers is extremely strong. Improved seed is being produced. There is a considerable reorganisation of the agricultural extension work. I think that there are also grounds for encouragement concerning irrigation. There is much less complacency about this than there was in the past. Hitherto, areas used to be considered irrigated once the main dams had been completed, but the recognition of the need for secondary channels and more adequate lining is much more widespread today. Then there are the intensive district programmes of the Ford Foundation. There was on one to whom I more enjoyed speaking on this whole subject of agriculture than Mr. Emsminger, of the Ford Foundation. His programme has been going on for four years, and the problems are well-documented.
Important developments are also going on in the agricultural schools, and, above al, one must pay tribute to the outstanding courage and intelligence of the present Minister of Agriculture, both over the higher incentive prices and also over food distribution. Mr. Subramaniam knows that he is dealing with a technical subject. He has seen to it that price policies are producer-oriented for the first time, though there are controls at the retail end, and considerable steps have been taken in food distribution. Obviously, there are continuing problems in this sector. For instance, one could easily criticise the administrative separation of the departmental arrangements for irrigation and for agriculture. Also one has to remember the importance of continuing to diversify industry in the rural economy of India, and to create job opportunities in rural areas which skilled and educated people will find satisfying. The brain drain from the land is a very serious matter in India. One must not judge India from her big cities. One must remember that the heart of India is the villages. This is certainly my own strong belief.
But when all is said and done, if the planned inputs of water and fertiliser now start to materialise on the scale envisaged, they could evoke a very considerable response, given the continuation of prices favourable to producers. Inputs can quite suddenly release greater and more efficient outputs when the price policies are right. I think of the British coal industry, in the second half of the 1950s, and how the change in price policy seemed suddenly to release the advantages of the high capital expenditure of earlier years. I think that exactly the same thing could happen over agriculture in India.
Before I come to the last part of my speech, I want to refer to family planning. It is quite unreal to talk about India in any context without being as frank about the population problem as everybody is in India. Why we all keep up the conspiracy of silence about that subject, I have never understood. Nobody is so foolish in India, because everybody realises that a population growth rate of 2·8 per cent. a year means that there are likely to be at least 625 million people in India in 1975, and that this is the most serious problem of all. It is worth remembering that the population of India in 1975 will be well above half the total population of the world in 1850. That is a figure which is always worth remembering. Many steps are being taken by the Government such as the decision to set up a firm to produce 160 million condoms a year, to produce very cheap inter-uterine coils, and to educate many more people to undergo the simple operation of vasectomy. But I am a little concerned that if one looks at the Minister of Health's Department one finds that the Director of Family Planning is well down the hierarchy in the Ministry. There is need for a really powerful director-general in this field.
Finally, I come to the lessons which can be drawn for all of us. Frankly, there are some criticisms which could be made. Output in India seems too low in relation to the capital employed. And while I think that it is entirely right for the Perspective Planning Division to insist on the need to maximise the creation of physical production facilities, it is equally important that attention should be paid to getting the maximum output from investment, and the optimum use of existing production capacity. And while there


must, of course, be a continuing nexus of import control, it could perhaps be argued that fiscal measures and excise taxes could be used more and that officials sometimes try to decide too much in complete detail without the requisite information.

Mr. Deputy- Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member, but he seems to be criticising another Government. I hope that he will come to matters for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible.

Sir E. Boyle: Indeed—and I shall now pass straight away to what is much more important—the lessons for ourselves.
In general, we need to give more thought to the whole question of the rationale of aid and what should be the balance between project and non-project, or general purpose aid. This is a highly important subject. One needs to remember that project aid entails considerable amounts of spares and components which are consequential, and non-project aid can also be of great importance in helping existing capital resources to be used more efficiently.
We also need to remember that the basic rôle of aid is to supplement the foreign exchange resources of developing countries. The problem of so many developing countries is that even if they can save enough to finance the whole of their development programme, the need for foreign exchange may still persist. The "dollar gap" sort of situation, which we knew so well in this country applies very strongly to India today, and will go on
applying—I believe—for a long time. It is quite wrong to assume that in most developing countries an increase in savings will bring about a reduction in imports or a sufficient increase in exports to pay for the foreign exchange content of their investment programme. I beg everyone in Britain to try to avoid the error of supposing that the balance of payments of developing countries are basically in equilibrium. This is an error which is often made. We tend in Britain to have an exaggerated reverence for 19th-century international trade theory in circumstances in which it is just not relevant.
When imports are already strictly controlled, a rise in domestic savings is not likely to be reflected in any significant fall in demand for imported goods. There-

fore, however successful India may be in expanding her savings and investment, I believe that a continuing serious foreign exchange stringency is something that she will not be able to avoid.
I apologise for having taken up so much time. I now turn, lastly to the question of British Government policy. In looking at our aid to India—and Pakistan, too—we must look at it from the point of view of priorities in public expenditure because, after all, the coming planning period, both in India and Pakistan, is going to be crucial to the whole future of the economic progress of those countries. The present level of British official aid to India and Pakistan is about £50 million a year and I think that the time is coming when we may be called upon to provide aid at a rate of something like £75 million a year to India and Pakistan combined. Can we take the attitude that we may have to not play our full part in aiding India and Pakistan in their plans because we cannot find this money from public funds? I am sure that this need should rank high when we are considering priorities for public expenditure, particularly bearing in mind the fact that what we are committing ourselves to now will not have much effect on disbursements for another two or three years. This is not something that we can decide just in terms of our short-term balance of payments problem, especially when we are considering what can be done by way of refinancing.
We should also consider whether our whole pattern of aid is rightly directed for India and Pakistan. Are we doing as much as we should in aiding agricultural development, in helping India to make the best use of her surplus manpower and slowing down the increase in population? Agriculture is in relation both to the internal development of the country and is a crucial factor in the development of India to the prospects for the growth of her exports. Her export performance must depend in part on how rapidly the production of export commodities can be increased, as well as on the extent of the rate of domestic consumption and India's taxation policy.
When we consider the employment aspect we must ask whether we are not. perhaps, devoting too much aid to the most capital-intensive sectors of the


economy. Surely there are parts of the economy where the more labour-intensive techniques would seem to be indicated? Is there any way in which our aid could do more to help in that direction? Finally, in view of the crucial importance of controlling the rate of population would it not be right heavily to subsidise any product which can get accepted in the context of restraining population growth?
These are a few suggestions I have to make. I apologise again for having taken such a high proportion of the time available for the debate. I hope that the House will agree that the whole Indian sub-continent is a matter of crucial importance to us all in the West. I personally believe that the battle for prestige between India and Communist China is a battle of quite exceptional importance to us all, and one in which w have a larger stake in winning than most people in Britain realise.
That distinguished historian Sir George Clark once drew a distinction between the seventeenth century countries which were still feudal properties and what he called "the growth of pays or regions". India is one of the great historic regions of the world. One has only to go there to realise this. I am certain that the people of that country wish to maintain the best of relations with Britain. They do not in all respects want to imitate the West and they are not troubled by any sense of a "love-hate relationship" with the West. Since the whole Indian subcontinent is such a vital area, I hope that this is a topic which the House will consider worthy of an hour of our time on an occasion like this.

1.35 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: The House owes a considerable debt to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), first, for the compassion which he showed towards the Indian people and the problems they are facing, and, secondly, for the skill, depth and range of the knowledge with which he displayed that compassion.
In considering the problem of aid to India, one cannot but help being struck by the similarities of Britain and other great countries which are facing the future; the situation in which a great capitalist economy is striving, very

slowly and quite openly, to metamorphose to a Socialist economy. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the very low per capita income of India. In fact, it is only £25 a year now and even when the next Five-Year Plan is completed it is aimed to rise no higher than £29. Frankly, the difference between £25 and £29 as a per capita income is difficult for us to perceive. I am not sure how much it means to the Indian at the very lowest level of income, who, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, receives less than 20 rupees a month, or less than 30s.
The Budget has granted a development rebate of 25 per cent. for certain priority industries, to come into effect in April, 1967, but the criticism has been levelled that the list of these priority industries is both too short and arbitrary. Prior to the Budget there was a rise in import duties. It is not, however, insignificant to note that these increases were accepted in three important cases—food grains, fertilisers and family planning accessories.
In looking at the similarities one finds that India is enjoying a Bank Rate as high as 6 per cent. Meanwhile, her balance of payments difficulty corresponds to ours. I understand that her reserves are close to the statutory minimum of £150 million, while the International Monetary Fund and the Aid India Consortium—which is a group of Atlantic communities anxious to provide assistance to India—are expected to provide support in terms of foreign investment and exchange, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as of equal importance.
None the less, in looking at the problem of aid for India, I re-emphasise—elaborate, perhaps—the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we need to look at the sort of ways in which we are helping the under-developed countries. The demands from the emerging countries for assistance not only cannot go unheard by the affluent and industrial countries, but we have a responsibility to remember that our affluence is increasing proportionately and absolutely much faster than the wealth and resources of the under-developed countries.
This leads me inexorably to one conclusion: that the countries of the industrial West will face a stern problem concerning


their integrity because we will have to face at least the possibility of holding our own standards of living—perhaps even of accepting a drop—if we are to satisfy the demands of the emergent countries for this sort of aid. It seems that when we look at the gap between India and Britain today, even in terms of per capita income, we see that there is no basis of equity, no basis of Socialism, in a world in which such contrasts can continue to exist.
The question of the foreign debt which India carries was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The House should know that servicing that debt in 1965 will cost India £100 million, which is three times the 1963 figure and which is equivalent to 20 per cent. of her total export earnings this year. Looking ahead, we see that the servicing of the foreign debt is liable to rise in the next few years to as much as £400 million a year, an extraordinary burden to place on a country which is trying to lift itself up, as are all the emergent countries, by her own means.
It is worth looking at the sources of foreign capital. In 1962–63, the major sources of foreign capital coming into India were, from the United States, £436 million; from the Soviet Union, £179 million; from West Germany—and I found this most unexpected—£130 million; from the United Kingdom. which should traditionally be the main source of India's capital investment and aid, £95 million. These figures seem to indicate a very significant change in the attitude of the Indian Government to foreign private capital investment.
The industrial policy laid down by the Indian Government as long ago as 1948–49 certainly gave opportunities for the investment of foreign capital, but did so under conditions that ensured both continuing Indian control and the retraining of Indian experts to replace those from overseas. None the less, the balance-of-payments crisis, the death of Prime Minister Nehru, the growing pressure from China—which is not only felt on the Chinese-Indian border but throughout the whole of Asia—these factors, and others, are leading to a growing introduction of private capital and of capitalist influence, and a move away from the type of Socialist development

that we on this side want to assist India in attaining.
The advances in education so rightly referred to by the right hon. Gentleman need to be studied in their true context, and the most important context in a country trying to industrialise itself is the literaracy rate, which is still under 25 per cent. In certain Indian States it drops much lower. Perhaps one should not say it in the presence of the hon. Lady but the literacy rate among women is significantly lower than that among men. Nevertheless, we realise, as does the right hon. Gentleman, that beneath these rather florid economic problems lies the problem of education.
India contains one-third of the total population of the emergent countries. Its energy consumption, which should always be the yardstick by which we can measure the prosperity of a country, amounts to 161 kg. of coal equivalent per year, compared with a world average of 1,465, and a figure in Japan of 1,388, and of 4,070 in Australia. These are stark figures when we are considering aid for a country such as India. The educational target for 1965–66 is that 76 per cent. of children between 6 and 11 will attend primary schools and 28·6 per cent. of those between 11 and 14. The very striking contrast is that in the 14–17 age group no fewer than 15·6 per cent. are expected to attend school in 1965–66.
I would emphasise that aid other than financial aid is needed—not that I discount the financial aid, because I have stressed its overriding importance. We must, however, also look at other means of assistance. There is the need for teachers, and for new exchange schemes between India and this country. There is the need for assistance, possibly, with crash training facilities, for teachers by sending out some of our best educantionists for short terms. There is the need for new science-based methods of teaching in the universities, training colleges and schools, and methods particularly applicable to the special problems of the Indian countryside and the Indian towns. Assistance is needed for educational research based on that sort of thing.
Repeated reference has been made to population control, and I heartily agree with what the right hon. Gentleman had


to say on that subject. I was surprised to learn how low in the hierarchy in their Ministry of Health the population control officer, or whatever he is called, came. There is no doubt of the importance that India attaches to this population problem. In India's third Plan, we find it said of the family planning programme that
… the objective of stabilising the growth of population over a reasonable period must be at the very centre of planned development.
We are facing not the sophisticated individual problems of family planning as we have them here, but the much greater problem of population control, which is a community concern. We therefore need research into cheap and common-sense unsophisticated methods of birth control—not the mechanical methods that are not applicable to uninformed and unlettered population. We need a vast programme of community education, using some very sophisticated methods, and we need assistance in altering the attitude of the Indian
peasant—shared, I think, by primitive farm communities everywhere—that the more sons a farmer has the richer he becomes. We needed to change that attitude.
I urge the Government to look at financial aid to emergent countries in a new way. I believe that we should move away from the principle of nationalisation, of community projects, which we on this side hold to be important, to the internationalisation of projects, whereby this country could provide Government funds directed to investment, to projects, to the types of scheme referred to by the right hon. Gentleman which are not necessarily capital-intensive but labour-intensive, and where we can provide the "know-how," the experts, the finance in collaboration with the Indian Government which, under Indian industrial policy, exert a very wide hold over industrial development.
I believe that the return in political terms, in support of the Indian Government by displaying our confidence in their future, would answer to a very large extent the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the conflict between China and India. The return would be a long-term one—we could not expect profits or quick returns—but it would assist British industry because, as was said in a recent Report to the Development Commission in India, we could

dovetail European development with Indian development.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with these points in his reply. I merely want to emphasise from this side of the Chamber how much we share the concern expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and how much a debt to humanity as a whole is contained in this endeavour.

1.48 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I count myself even luckier than my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) in that earlier this year I spent a month in India as the guest of the Indian Government, and I am extremely grateful for the hospitality I received. I went to almost every major State and saw much agriculture and industry. I agree that India's burden of debt repayment to other countries is very great, and for the need for exports. But I remember that the Integral Coach Factory, in Madras, was cock-a-hoop because it had the lowest tenders for two developing countries elsewhere, but then found that Europe offered long credit terms which India cannot afford. That is one of the problems which India faces.
I agree that because of our balance of payments difficulties our aid is nothing like enough. I do not believe that we realise how well India stands in regard to her refugee problem—70,000 Tibetans, 20,000 people from Burma, 1 million last year from East Pakistan—and it has also a population increase of 1 million new mouths to feed each month. We must endeavour to stop the population explosion. Anything that Her Majesty's Government can do to help India over birth control by the production of mobile family planning units such as are provided by the Government of Maharashtra should be done. It would help immensely, too, if the Government could, perhaps, get the United States Government to house some of their surplus food in silos in India. That might well prevent a famine in the years to come, a famine which may come through lack of monsoon or through transport difficulties.
I saw some of the agricultural fields around Amritsar where the salt had come to the surface in land which used to produce so much food. I realise.


however, that emphasis is no longer on heavy industry, but that agriculture is the main culture. Many leading statesmen have said that. I was lucky enough to see one of the big fertiliser plants in the foothills of the Himalayas.
There are other ways in which we can help India, such as by the new Durgapur Scheme which, I am told, will produce £250 million worth of bottle-necked imports in about two years, but not until then. Wherever one went there was acute shortage of steel. Private industry after private industry was working under capacity, because it could not get components through shortage of steel. I hope that the Minister will say something about Kipping aid, which has been so immensely useful in the conventional exports from this country and which are good for this country and for India. That trade keeps up the links with this country until fresh oil discoveries or better times come along.
Will the hon. Gentleman look at whether, through the F.B.I., we can give more technical aid to various foremen on the shop floor? I found only 12 people from the Indian railways went abroad last year. They could not afford for more to go. Could they not be helped to go in Indian ships or by Air India? This would not affect our balance of payments. In that way we can bring here a new generation to follow the Indian Civil Service, which has helped Anglo-Indian relations so much in the past.

1.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): I shall do my best to rectify the time-table, which got rather disjointed at the beginning of this debate. I am sorry that a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, who have a keen interest in this highly important subject, have been squeezed out of the debate.
That there has been so much interest in this subject is a tribute to the initiative of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who raised it. I compliment him on the vast amount of information he presented to us in such a fascinating way, information which he gathered as a result of his recent visit to India. It is valuable when

hon. Members have the opportunity of travelling abroad for them to come back and share their experiences and ideas with their fellow hon. Members.
This debate gives me an opportunity of re-emphasising what other hon. Members have said, the highly important position that India occupies not only in the world, but, because of that, in the British aid programme. The right hon. Member spoke of the planning mechanisms and gave much interesting information as to how successful economic planning by democratic methods has been. India is also of great importance to us in terms of aid because, as has been graphically illustrated, it as much as any other country faces the great problem of poverty and under development.
The most useful thing I can do in view of the shortage of time is to concentrate on British aid rather than the internal situation in India and to preface my brief description of what we are doing by a reference to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister indicated at the outset of her taking office how important she regards both India and Pakistan in this matter of British aid overseas. As the House will know, she went to these two countries just after Christmas. She saw a great number of people involved in the economic development of India and was able to make important contacts.
My right hon. Friend, like the right hon. Member, had a session with the Economic Planning Commission and she was able to let her Indian opposite numbers know what plans we in the Ministry have for overseas development. She assured them, for instance, that we are setting up an economic planning staff within the Ministry and that we are doing so to enable us to keep in closer touch with the development plans of countries such as India and to fit our aid into those plans so as to make it as effective as possible.
The right hon. Member raised the important question of what the pattern of aid should be. He asked some important questions in that connection. I assure him that our economic planning staff is examining just that series of questions and I am grateful that he drew attention to them.
The right hon. Member's main point, which was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central


(Dr. David Kerr), was that India, for its Fourth Plan, should receive the same net amount of development aid as it has been receiving under the previous plan and that in considering this we should take into account the fact that the problem of servicing debt is becoming an increasing burden for India. I assure the right hon. Member that when the Government considers the Fourth Plan—we shall consider it with the Indian Government and other members of the consortium—and when we reach decisions on the appropriate level of aid, we shall take full account of the points he made about India's continuing need for foreign exchange both for development and for servicing the increasing debt burden. The Government would consider India's request and be as sympathetic as possible in the light of our own economic circumstances at the time when we consider the plan.
I will say a few words about our programme of aid to India as it is at the moment. It consists of two parts, capital aid in the form of loans for economic development and technical assistance. My hon. Friend concluded by urging us, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), to make sure that the fullest possible technical assistance shall be made available to India. I hope to say something about what we are doing in that connection. First, about capital aid. We are members of the Aid to India Consortium and at the moment we are between two meetings which are deciding the amount of the pledges that the member countries will make in connection with the next year's programme. We have endeavoured to use our influence in the Consortium to encourage members to provide aid on soft interest and repayment terms in a form most valuable to India.
The right hon. Member said that general purpose aid is of great importance, and I entirely agree. Half of our capital aid is in general purpose form and we have a very good record by comparison with our partners in this matter, as I am sure he recognises.
The hon. Member for Wavertree asked me to say something about Kipping aid. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a most useful component of our aid programme. It is that part of our aid which enables India

to import components for maintenance purposes, and so on, and this links with our export effort. I agree entirely that the importance of this should be stressed.
The House will wish to know the total amount of our aid. Since 1958, this has amounted to £235·5 million out of a total consortium aid of £1,956 million. Over the past two years our aid has reached the level of £30 million. We have made important contributions to two major projects—the Bhopal heavy electrical plant and the Durgapur steel works. Subject to conditions which have to be agreed, we have offered to commit part of our future pledges to a large extension of the Durgapur steel works.

Mr. John Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the figures he has given, impressive as they are, are very much further enhanced if private investment in India—and, indeed, in other parts of the developing world—is taken into consideration? Would the hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to try to differentiate between foreign investment of this type and foreign investment of the portfolio type, if the Budget is not to do unnecessary and undesirable damage to the aid we are giving to other countries?

Mr. Oram: We have spent five days debating the Budget. Since we are already running over time on this debate, it is a little optimistic of the hon. Gentleman to try to entice me in that way. I agree with the importance of the point that he raises.
I want to say a few words about technical assistance, on which, since 1950, we have spent nearly £4 million. It is not the money so much as the skills that we are able to transfer which are important. In connection with the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi and also as partners in the Commonwealth Educational Co-operation Scheme, we can claim to have been playing an important part in this transfer of skills. We have enabled technicians in the realm of machine tool production, mining research, textile research, building and fire research, oil and natural gas production, and in other spheres, to take their place as advisers in the Indian economy.
I am glad that hon. Members mentioned the highly important subject of agriculture. It is one of the cruxes of the matter in terms of Indian development. This week, at Question Time, my right hon. Friend said that she is fully aware of the importance of agriculture and indicated her complete willingness to help India in any way that we can in this connection.
Another important point on which I should say something is family planning, because I entirely agree with what the right hon. Member for Handsworth said about the crucial importance of this question and the need for us to be quite open and frank in discussing it. The population explosion in relation to India is of paramount importance in considering which road that country is to travel.
Hon. Members may remember that at the Colombo Plan Council meeting, held in London before Christmas, my right hon. Friend, who was in the chair, raised this question of the population explosion and the need for family planning. Largely because of her initiative, it has been decided that this shall be a subject for special discussion at the next meeting of the Colombo Plan members in Karachi. Similarly, at the E.C.A.F.E. meeting, held in Wellington recently, both the British delegation, which I led, and the United States delegation, made offers of help in family planning. This is what is needed in connection with Indian development.
We as a country are making an important contribution—India recognises this—within the limits of our resources to development in India. We shall continue to make our maximum contribution. Our regret when we think of the vast subcontinent of India and its conditions can only be that whatever we do must, by comparison with its vast needs, always seem rather miserably small. This should be encouragement to us to do the maximum, and this we intend to do.

Mr. John Harvey: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask you to represent to Mr. Speaker that there were obviously a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who had hoped to be able to contribute something of value to this debate? It might be widely

appreciated, therefore, if a similar opportunity could be given to the House in the future.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but what he has raised is not exactly a point of order. The Adjournment debates for today are fixed, by mutual understanding, to last for about an hour each. If one debate turns out to be as important as this one has done, some hon. Members must be disappointed at not being called. Representations on the need for further debate might be made through the usual channels rather than as a point of order.

GIBRALTAR

2.6 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: Today, the people of Gibraltar are undergoing the fifteenth seige in their long history. As I have been fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair today, I should like to raise the subject of the plight of the people of Gibraltar and urge upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of doing everything possible in this country to assist this British territory within the Mediterranean.
I hope that during the hour allotted for this subject hon. Members on both sides will be able to avoid party political points. The debate will be reported, particularly in Gibraltar and in Spain. I hope that we shall be able to give an impression of unanimity, of sincerity, and of regard for the people of Gibraltar, and be able to eliminate altogether any kind of party political controversy. I sincerely hope, in my speech, to set an example.
The simple facts are that today the territory of Gibraltar is under a state of seige imposed by the Government of General Franco. I do not want today to get involved in any argument about the Caudillo. I have my own views, as one who fought during the war. This afternoon, I do not want in any way to appear to criticise the people of Spain. Many of us have friends in that country. All I want to do is to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the democratic society of Gibraltar is in danger. Those of us who know this territory will emphasise the word "democratic".
I believe that Gibraltar is a unique and charming blend of the Mediterranean and the life of the Mediterranean and a British walfare state. There is a combination of Venetian blinds in the sun and health clinics. There is a combination of tropical plants and free elementary schooling for children. There is a combination of the fact that Gibraltar is a neighbour of North African territories and, at the same time, is a territory where red G.P.O. boxes and "bobbies" in blue are to be seen. is a territory which has a fine democratic tradition, an elected legislature, and an extremely distinguished Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan.
At the moment this territory of Gibraltar is under a state of siege. Since the time of the consensus of 24 nations of the United Nations about the middle of last October the Spanish Government have put forward a number of measures designed to cut off the life of Gibraltar from the European hinterland. They have stopped vehicles for long periods of time at the frontier. British subjects have been forced to leave the Campo area. They have stopped the export from Spain to Gibraltar of such things as Christmas trees for hospitals and altar wine. They have refused to acknowledge passports issued by the Government of Gibraltar.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will be able to give assurances on 10 points and on the constructive proposals which I have to make for alleviating the conditions of the people of Gibraltar. We should say to the Government of Spain that if they will not honour passports issued on behalf of the Government of Gibraltar we shall seriously consider whether we will honour passports issued by the Government of Spain. I do not wish the debate to degenerate into an anti-Spanish campaign, but if our passports are not to be honoured we must remind the Spanish Government that their passports may be in danger.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give the fullest financial assistance for rehousing those British subjects, about 600 to 700 in number, who have been forced to leave the Campo area. I hope that they will bear the cost of extra houses needed and of any schools for the children to move into. I hope that Her

Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the Government of Gibraltar, will look more closely at the rapid removal of a large number of derelict army barracks which are of no use to the community of Gibraltar. I hope that these will be destroyed so that more living space may be provided in Gibraltar where the flat living space is equal only to the area of Hyde Park.
The Spanish Government have interfered with the import of foodstuffs into Gibraltar. I hope that we shall take more active steps to seek alternative markets, particularly for fruit and vegetables, from territories in North Africa such as Morocco. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make preparations to meet the situation should the Spanish Government stop Spanish workers from the La Linea area from entering Gibraltar for the lawful purposes of employment. We do not want the people of Gibraltar to be cut off suddenly from their supply of labour.
I should like Her Majesty's Government to encourage the people of Gibraltar in the commercial sense, particularly in ship repairing. I hope that this summer B.E.A. and Thomas Cook, in an imaginative project, will encourage tourism so as to provide three or four days in Gibraltar, with perhaps a further holiday in Morocco. We must seek alternative tourist resources for the people of Gibraltar. I hope that restrictions under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act will be relaxed for the people of Gibraltar until their present difficulties are past. We should raise this whole subject in the United Nations, because our conscience is clear and the rights of the people of Gibraltar are clear.
I would hope that within the reasonably near future we might be able to send another all-party delegation to Gibraltar to assure the people of that territory that they have the unanimous support of all parties and all people in this country. It may seem that Gibraltar, with a population of 25,000, is a matter of relatively little importance in a world in turmoil. Britain with its responsibilities in the nuclear sense, its anxieties in Asia and its interest in the Commonwealth and Europe has many preoccupations, but this is a moral test for the United Kingdom and it is our duty


to support the people of Gibraltar regardless of the cost.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government, who, I know, are extremely sympathetic towards the Government of Gibraltar, will bear this moral duty in mind. I hope that at the conclusion of the debate there will be nothing to mar the situation, nothing narrow, petty or partisan, and that we shall be able to send out to the people of Gibraltar from this House a message that we appreciate their dangers and admire their courage and will never let them down.

2.16 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) on raising this question at this time. A debate in the House on the problems of Gibraltar can only do good. I should like to follow the hon. Member's example and not indulge in party political matters but I must refer to one issue which I think he will take as party political but which I am raising merely because it is fundamental to the present situation.
Gibraltar has been British for 260 years and it is our right and duty to protect and support the people of Gibraltar. I believe that the Rock will remain British until and if national sovereignties are fused or in some way associated in some form of regional grouping. We must look at two things—the underlying reasons for the present dispute and the possibilities of a long-term cure.
Basically there has been interference with the passage of foodstuffs and people between Gibraltar and La Linea in the past. The facts are well known. But it is fair to say that the present crisis would not have happened if it had not been for the interference of United Nations Committee of 24 who, unlike their usual practice, were not able to make up their minds between two sides both of whom were white whereas usually colonial disputes are between coloured and white and they come down on the side of the coloured. If there had not been this direct interference this matter would not have reached a crisis.
It was this and the debates in the United Nations that exacerbated the situation between Spain and this country. There is another criticism which is per-

haps relevant and I shall criticise Governments drawn from either side of this House. When we were in power the new Constitution was introduced rather hurriedly in 1964. Its introduction could have been spread over a long period with more discussions and with explanations given to the Spanish Government, because by that Constitution the government of Gibraltar was virtually handed over to the Gibraltarians although there was no question of the transfer of sovereignty.
I believe that this was misunderstood in Spain. Looking back, I think that we might have reached greater understanding with Spain if we had spent more time and effort in explaining what was happening. The Lansdowne Constitution came into force in April, 1964. In May last year Spain protested that the Constitution would lead to the final independence of Gibraltar and therefore would be a breach of the Treaty of Utrecht. In June the Conservative Government rejected these views but stressed that they wanted to maintain good relationships and that they would discuss any matters except the question of the sovereignty of Gibraltar. In July, and this is very relevant, came the question of the Spanish frigates. In October we had the General Election and after that the consensus of opinion of the Committee of 24 was, quite rightly, rejected by the new Government. On 17th October restrictions were imposed on La Linea. On the 24th normal conditions were restored. On the 26th, the new Government cancelled the Anglo-Spanish naval exercises, and on the 31st the restrictions were reimposed and have been maintained ever since.
I believe that both those factors, the rather rapid introduction of the Lansdowne Constitution and the effect of words said in this House, first over the frigates and later over the cancellation of the Anglo-Spanish exercises, annoyed and exasperated the Spaniards who, after all, are a very proud and independent people.
Having said that, I come to some suggestions for the future. I believe that the fundamental issue arises on the last part of the Treaty of Utrecht affecting Gibraltar, which was set out in the recent White Paper, Cmnd. 2632:
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant, sell or by any means alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is


hereby agreed and concluded, that the preference of having the same shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
The Constitution of 1964 to which I have referred provided for five additional unofficial members of the Executive, 11 elected and no nominated members of the Legislative Council, and, for the first time, a Chief Minister and a Council of Ministers. To the outside world it looked as though it was the last or next to last sage of normal progression in any British colony—Malta and Cyprus are examples—to final independence within the Commonwealth. This should, therefore, be our starting point in trying to find an accommodation with the Spanish Government. I believe that neither the people of Gibraltar nor the people of this country want to end their association. I believe that they want to maintain the sovereignty of Her Majesty over their Rock as we want to maintain it over this Island. Therefore, there can be no question of transfer of sovereignty, but this must be made clear in such a way as to be understandable to the foreigner and particularly to the Spaniard who feels that he has the first right to the Rock if we should give up our sovereignty.
There are two ways of doing this. The first would be to follow a suggestion put forward by the Maltese some years ago in their relationships with this country. Briefly, it would mean a Member of Parliament for Gibraltar in the House. Presumably, also, it would mean the British system of taxation in Gibraltar, which I am sure would be highly unpopular. I do not, therefore, believe that it would really commend itself, although it is a possibility.
The second suggestion which I put to the hon. Lady is that she should consider the Constitution of the Isle of Man in this context. As I understand it—I have looked into the constitution of the Isle of Man in the last few days—the Isle of Man comes under the Home Office and has nothing to do with the Colonial Office or the Commonwealth Relations Office. Citizens of the Isle of Man are citizens of the United Kingdom, Islands and Colonies. In other words, there is no question of colonial status for the Isle of Man as there is today for the Colony of Gibraltar. It is a possession of Her Majesty overseas. The United Kingdom Government are responsible for foreign

affairs and for defence, as they would obviously wish to be in respect of Gibraltar, and as the Gilbraltarians, equally obviously, would wish them to be. The Isle of Man is fully self-governing internally but—I quote from the Central Office of Information pamphlet on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—
While in domestic affairs the islands virtually form independent democracies, their legislatures do not consist of their assemblies alone but each consists of the Queen, the Privy Council, and the Assembly.
Such a constitution would make it perfectly clear to the world that neither we nor Gibraltar ever intended to remove our sovereignty over the Rock. I believe that it would give the Gibraltarians all they want in the way of self-government and also would satisfy our critics in the United Nations. We should give an assurance along these lines and make it clear that we never propose to remove our sovereignty from Gibraltar or allow it to become a small independent State which would obviously be under colossal pressure from potentially hostile neighmours. Such an assurance could, I suggest, be given by preparing a constitution along the lines of the Isle of Man Constitution, transferring the affairs of Gibraltar from the Colonial Office to the Home Office, and in this way we could start to restore the good relations which we all want with Spain. Later, of course, Spain and Britain may become more closely associated in regional pacts or other associations, but, for the moment, I make this proposal as one which could lead to an immediate improvement.
I conclude as I began, following the lines so well expressed by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. Whatever happens, we cannot negotiate under duress. Whatever happens, we have a duty and a responsibility to back the people of Gibraltar to the end.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) on raising this matter at this rather important time. I am truly sorry that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who seemed to concur in the idea of conducting the debate as a non-party matter, trotted out the hoary old story of the frigates. I wish that the House would


accept the facts. I was for a time in Gilbraltar, under the aegis of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I have spoken with all manner of Gibraltarians, some of them members of the hon. Gentleman's party, and they will not for a moment agree that the affairs of the frigates has anything to do with the matter at all.
The House must come to terms with the situation. This unfortunate episode in our relations with Spain has persisted, with periods of relief, from the time of Her Majesty's visit to Gibraltar in 1954. That is the truth, and there is no person on the Rock who believes any different. The hon. Gentleman's own party there subscribes to that view. I say all this because I am most anxious not to introduce any partisan note knowing only too well that at this moment there are many thousands of wretchedly unhappy people in Gibraltar and—I ask my hon. Friend to accept this—outside Gibraltar, too. There are unhappy people in La Linea, in Algeciras, in San Roque and down the Costa del Sol as far as Málaga. These people have their livelihoods seriously affected by the kind of nonsense now going on at the frontier.
I have had experience myself of the sort of thing which goes on, and I draw attention to one particular matter brought out in the Government's White Paper, the authority for which is no less than the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs. Señor Castiella said that the restrictions on the Gibraltar frontier merely represented measures which any country was entitled to take to prevent smuggling.
I do not accept that Señor Castiella really believes that himself. It is so pathetic, so naive. When we were there, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) and I crossed the frontier without any interference whatever. We put our car in a queue. We could see that the queue had not moved for hours, so we decided to cross on foot. This we did and, in the main square of Algeciras, the hon. Gentleman and I bought a couple of oranges which we then peeled and ate, with, if I may so, rather more ostentation than I would normally show. It was done purely to attract attention to ourselves. When we returned from Algeciras to the frontier, we deliberately chose the wrong exit so that we should

be spoken to by the guarda. We were spoken to very courteously by the guarda, we were told which was the correct exit, and through we went.
The point I make is that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and I could have had our pockets full of marijuana, Indian hemp, and all kinds of contraband, but no one bothered us at all. We invited the rest of our party to cross the frontier in the same way, and this they did. There were no murmurs and there was no interference of any kind. Therefore, I feel obliged to say that that statement by the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs is really not sensible. In my view, the Spanish Government should take it upon themselves to withdrawn it.
I have already said that I am concerned not only about the people in Gibraltar, but about the people in La Linea, Algeciras and down as far as Malaga on the Costa del Sol. When we crossed the border in Spain the hon. Member for Hornchurch and myself, and also Mr. Peter Lugard, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at Gibraltar, went into the shops and also the hotels and had drinks and spoke to the Spaniards. It is true that these people are as unhappy and wretched about this silly dispute as any on the Rock. Their livelihoods are being seriously affected. We said to them, "Surely you can make representations to your Government in Madrid ", but we were told that at no time has Madrid ever thought about the area, that it has always been an isolated corner of Spain which has depended upon the Rock for its economic well-being.
For that reason, I advise the House that we should be concerned not only about our friends on the Rock, but about the Spaniards in that part of Spain. I found them to be very sensible people, just as anxious as the people in Gibraltar to get this unfortunate episode closed. Therefore, the observations of the Spanish Foreign Secretary cannot bear even the most elementary examination.
I turn to another point made by a very representative member of the Spanish Government, Senor de Pinies, who said at the United Nations that Gibraltar was part of Spanish territory and that its present inhabitants had no voice in its future. That claim was made by a responsible Spaniard speaking for his


country in a most responsible place, the United Nations. With the hon. Member for Hornchurch and the rest of our delegation, I spoke to all sections of the community in Gibraltar, even boys and girls of 17 and 18 at high school, and we spoke to them in the most exacting way. We asked, "Why is it that you do not want to belong to the mainland of Spain?", making it a challenge to them, and in all cases we found that they had seriously thought the matter out and were very British and wanted to remain with us.
I would ask the House to remember—I put this very seriously—that it is not very long since one of our great Parliamentarians—I have no need to refer to his name—thought that Gibraltar was a vital part of our defences at a time when we desperately needed friends. Friendship is not something that one can dispose of as though it were an old, unwanted garment. We should remember that. As a consequence, these people feel attached to us, and I believe that we are deeply obliged to them.
For that reason, I would make a suggestion in all seriousness to Her Majesty's Government, who, I know, have made the most earnest representations to the Spanish Government. I also know that the Spanish Government have been polite but unrelenting in their reply. I am seeking a way out of this unfortunate, unhappy impasse. I agree with all that my hon. Friend said about the process of alleviation for the people of Gibraltar. But my mind goes further than that. I would like to see the restoration of circumstances in which the people of Spain, as well as the people on the Rock itself, benefit from the association of Spain with the Rock. Because it would appear that Señor de Pinies believes that the people of Gibraltar have no voice in its future, I wonder whether the Government would be prepared to consider holding a plebiscite of the people, conducted by the United Nations and with terms of reference laid down by the Spanish Government as well as our Government.
Her Majesty's Government say that they are not prepared to negotiate under duress, but I have information which leads me to believe that the situation is getting progressively worse. Consequently, I do not think that both sides

should sit on their backsides and wait for some good fortune to come along and clear the situation up. Both Governments should recognise that the situation can be cleared up and that the citizens of Gibraltar should have a voice in its future and that that voice should be expressed in an independent manner through the agency to which I have referred. I most sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will respond to this suggestion for the reasons which I have given.
I repeat that the people of Gibraltar are getting very unhappy, and not the least of their problems at the moment are not entirely economic. The Rock is a very confined area, and it should he realised that if one is kept there, there is the possibility of the development in time of a kind of geographical claustrophobia, a most unhappy situation to be associated with.
For that reason I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give most serious consideration to my suggestion. At the same time, I assure the Government that moves are being made at the moment—I cannot possibly refer more fully to them—which, I hope, will, in the process of time, make a further contribution to clearing up this most unhappy situation.
Finally, I would tell my many friends in Gibraltar and my many acquaintances in Spain that I hope they will be calm and that they will be well counselled to behave themselves in the manner in which they have hitherto until this unfortunate episode becomes a chapter which has been placed in limbo and forgotten.

2.37 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important problem. I think it well to begin by referring to the fact that Gibraltar has been British longer than it has ever been Spanish.
This is, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the fifteenth siege of Gibraltar. It is a blockade that we are facing, not an attempt to control smuggling, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) pointed out, but a real attempt


to interrupt and break down the economic links between the Rock and the mainland of Spain.
The situation seems worse when we recall the very happy relations which existed over many years between Gibraltar and the southern provinces of Spain. I have been visiting southern Spain as a tourist over many years, and my experience was that there was hardly ever a feria, hardly ever a private party in southern Spain which was thought complete unless the Governor of Gibraltar or some of the leading Gibraltarians were present. The happiest relations existed between them. There was a moment of cloud after the Queen's visit in 1954, but that was dispelled, and, on the whole, the best relations existed. What the Spaniards have done now is undoubtedly, in my view, an unfriendly act towards this country.
The hon. Member urged that we should avoid taking up a partisan position on this issue. I join him to this extent in saying that as to what has to be done today and in the future I see no reason for any difference between the parties. But I must speak frankly to him in saying that I think that the Government which he supports carry some responsibility for the situation that has arisen. I do not want to talk about the emotional reaction of the Spaniards to the cancellation of the frigates deal, or the withdrawal from the N.A.T.O. manœuvres, but I think that anyone who has studied the question seriously—I am sure that the hon. Lady will have this in mind—must face the fact that diplomatic commerce between nations depends upon both sides thinking that they have something to gain from cordial co-operation with the other.
The attitude of the Labour Party over the frigates and the withdrawal from the manoeuvres left the impression in Spain, rightly or wrongly, that there was nothing to be got out of working with the new British Government and that, therefore, there was nothing to be lost by twisting our tails. The moral I would draw from that is that we should not let our foreign policy, whatever the ideology of the country with which we are dealing, be guided by ideological considerations. Working with Spain, the Soviet Union, or

any other country, whatever we may think of the way it administers its own affairs, it is as well to let the Governments concerned believe, and to ensure, that cooperation with us may be of advantage to both countries.
Having said that, I entirely join with the hon. Member for Burnley in his tribute to the Gibraltarians' way of life. It is a happy community, administered on the kinds of lines which we in this country think are right and from which the Spaniards can have no reason for thinking that we wish to subvert their interests. I should like to pay my own personal tribute to Sir Joshua Hassan for the way he has ridden this very difficult crisis with the help of all parties in the Legislature.
It is a happy change from our debate last Tuesday to be able to congratulate the Government on their White Paper. It has been of great help and has set out the situation very clearly.
At this point I should like to take up some of the issues which have been raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referred to the Lansdowne Constitution. It is quite clear that no possible breach of the Utrecht Treaty is involved, although whether the Utrecht Treaty could pass as an equal treaty in the United Nations I am not sure. My hon. Friend advocated an Isle of Man constitution for Gibraltar and I hope that the Government will give very serious consideration to that suggestion; although from the point of view of the Utrecht Treaty we have to convince the Spaniards that the authority of the House and of Her Majesty's Government in these islands remains absolute.
This is the present situation, as I understand it, and such delegation of power as we have given to Gibraltar can be revoked at any moment by the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government. As long as that is the case, there is no reason why the Spaniards should question whether we are fulfilling our obligations under the Treaty of Utrecht.
I must say that I have been disturbed about the passport issue and I know that it has caused the greatest feeling on the Rock. There it is felt that it was wrong for Britain to accept that a passport, issued by an authority duly appointed by the Queen, should be refused. It is not


the place of the Opposition to say exactly what the Government should do, but I urge that we should take some counteraction. I do not know why we should accept Spanish passports at our frontiers if British passports, properly issued according to our laws, are rejected at the Spanish frontier. This is a matter which I must leave to the Government, but they ought to consider it very carefully.
The housing of refugees and the importance of helping them have been mentioned. I was very impressed by the work I saw being done on the spot. I was very impressed by the morale of the refugees. I asked one how he was getting on and said that we would hope soon to have the matter settled so that he could go back to his home in La Linea. He said, "After what they have done for me, I would rather stay in this hut". That spirit was typical of the morale of the people there—of their pro-British sentiment.
Rather the same was true of the Spaniards. Having the advantage of speaking some Spanish, I spoke to three or four Spaniards working on the Rock and all were rather ashamed of what was going on, partly because they were no longer allowed to shop in Gibraltar and take goods away, so that their own self-interest was hit, but also because of a feeling that what was going on was wrong because of the friendships which had grown up between people in La Linea and Algeciras and people on the Rock. They thought that this was an uncivilised and unchivalrous way to behave.
We could do a great deal by the encouragement of tourism to Morocco. This year, there was a quite exceptional amount of tourism to Morocco from Britain in the winter, but it was rather luxury tourism, as winter tourism tends to be. However, there are very good facilities for summer tourism, too, on the north coast of Morocco around Tangier. It is not much more expensive than Spain and there are good hotels and restaurants, largely French run. A little help and encouragement from the Government to B.E.A., the shipping lines and the tourist agencies might be able to develop this tourism.

Mr. Dan Jones: This would hurt the people of Algeciras and Malaga even more than the people in Gibraltar.

Mr. Amery: The last thing I want to do is to hurt the people there, but it is our obligation to make sure that Gibraltar survives this very difficult situation; and the Gibraltar economy has been hurt to the extent of about 30 per cent, of its economic life. It is up to us to help Gibraltarians to find alternative ways of earning money.
I have been a little disturbed—and perhaps the hon. Lady would like to comment on this—by the reduction of B.E.A. frequencies to Gibraltar. Nobody can blame the chairman of B.E.A. for saying that he ought to cut down the number of frequencies if the traffic is not there. This is the kind of case, as I recall from my time as Minister of Aviation, when the Government ought to step in and be prepared to support, as we were prepared to support the Highlands and Islands frequencies in this country, although we were never put to the test.
The immigration problem would be very small and I am certain that the Home Secretary will appreciate the special situation of Gibraltar. After all, no possible communal or racial problem would be involved.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough advocated further reference to the United Nations, and the hon. Member for Burnley spoke of a plebiscite. They must judge for themselves, but I would be a little cautious about all this. The views of the people of Gibraltar have been clearly expressed by their representative institutions. Our obligations to them and our rights there are crystal clear. What is necessary at this stage, whatever we may think about the origins of the dispute, is that all of us should show an absolutely firm front to the aggression being perpetrated against us.
Reference has been made to Senor Castiella's comment on smuggling. I have made a little study of this. As I understand, smuggling into Europe is organised chiefly from New York and Amsterdam by large international smuggling rings which are, of course, supported by rings in the countries into


which the smuggling goes. On the evidence I have seen, smuggling into Spain has been largely assisted by the Spanish provincial authorities. This was not entirely to feather their own nests, but because Spain is a very high tariff country and they have wanted to bring certain goods into the tourist regions at reasonable prices.
This has been a kind of safely valve. But I do not think that Gibraltarians as such have been involved to any significant degree. Gibraltar is a free port, and Gibraltarian merchants sell their goods to traders, whether they be smugglers or legitimate traders. But I can find no evidence of Gibraltarians taking part on a large scale in the smuggling which is going on.

Mr. Jackson: There is smuggling between Ceuta and Algeciras.

Mr. Amery: My information is that a great deal of smuggling goes on in the whole of the Western Mediterranean. But Spain, being a high tariff country, is particularly vulnerable. I do not think that Gibraltarians are in any sense a major factor. The fact that Gibraltar is a free port makes it a place where people buy their wares, whether for smuggling or for legitimate purposes. But this is not the responsibility of the Gibraltar people.
We shall have to show a good deal of patience and firmness in this crisis. I played a little part in getting the restrictions lifted after the Queen's visit. There came a time when the Spaniards needed British help and support in different ways. I will not go into that matter this afternoon. When that time came we were careful to point out that we should be prepared to give the help that they wanted, but that they must lift the restrictions; and the restrictions were lifted.
The only moral which I would draw from this story is that I hope that the Government will not let ideological objections to the present régime in Spain stop them from helping Spain if the opportunity arises, provided that we receive on behalf of our Gibraltar friends proper support and alleviation of the present circumstances. We must conduct our foreign relations with Spain on the

same basis as we conduct our relations with other countries and without too much attention being paid to ideological considerations.
As has been pointed out, we have a moral duty to the people of Gibraltar. We have a national interest as well. It is very tempting nowadays to say that because of nuclear strategy, and so on, none of these fortresses has the same importance as before. I am not so sure about that. The Western Mediterranean is now in a much more turbulent state than it has been for many years. New countries have acquired independence. The whole situation is fluid and uncertain. Who would have said, even in 1939, that the liberation of North Africa would be based on Gibraltar? I do not believe that any strategist of that period would have maintained that Gibraltar was a viable base, even in 1939. Yet without Gibraltar we could not have liberated North Africa, and the war might have gone on much longer and the conclusion might have been much more disadvantageous to ourselves.
I should like to express the solidarity of the Opposition with the Government on the basis of the White Paper. Whatever differences we may have about the origin of the crisis, they can be sure that we shall give them our fullest support in standing up firmly to the pressures applied against us and in seeking every opportunity to reach a reasonable accommodation, but one which does not affect in any way the sovereignty of the Rock.

2.54 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mrs. Eirene White): I am sure that we are all greatly obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) for taking this opportunity to raise once more in the House the subject of Gibraltar. He has done so in a most lucid and temperate fashion, as we would expect of him, and I hope to answer some of the points which he raised.
It is now just about two months since I was in Gibraltar. Since then the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) has been there. I am sure that both of us would have hoped that by now there would have been a rift in the cloud and that some improvement would be in sight. I do not think that that is so.
I was glad that the right hon. Member for Preston, North was good enough to welcome the publication of the White Paper. We felt, on consideration, that it was only right to Gibraltarians, Her Majesty's Government and our Commonwealth partners, among others, that we should set out clearly on paper the issues at stake and some of the documents concerned so that there should be no dispute about the background. We were also at particular pains in the White Paper to set out the present constitutional position as clearly as was required because we felt that this was the one matter in which possibly the interests of Spain would be thought to be affected.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Preston, North. We do not believe that the present constitution, based on the Lansdowne discussions, contravenes the Treaty of Utrecht in any way, but we thought it only right to spell this out. I would draw the House's attention to page 4 of the White Paper where we make it abundantly clear that although, as we think is right and proper, the people of Gibraltar have been accorded a certain degree of responsibility for their own internal affairs, the basic position of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government is in no way altered. In other words, as we see it, the Governor, who is appointed by Her Majesty The Queen and is subject to the direction of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, remains the effective head of the Gibraltar Government. It seems to us that that statement should be sufficient to allay any fears or suspicions of the Spanish Government about the present constitution.
As to future constitutional developments, we have no reason to think that anything is required. We have had no request from the Gibraltarians in this respect. We have no intention of undertaking any further developments. As my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have said publicly, we thought that possibly the analogy of Malta might have been in the mind of the Spanish Government and that they might have had some idea that the present constitutional stage of Gibraltar was merely the precursor to a later one. We have said publicly more than once that if they had any apprehensions on that score we should

be willing, provided that the discussions could take place in proper circumstances and not under duress, to debate such matters with them and to ensure that any justifiable fears that they might have could be set at rest. Only in that context could any other proposals be discussed.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) suggested an Isle of Man constitution. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) talked of a plebiscite. At present we do not see any need for change. What is there seems to be working satisfactorily, and subject to any internal readjustment—

Mr. Dan Jones: Does not my hon. Friend think that the idea of a plebiscite which I advanced would give the Spanish Government a very good excuse to enable them to extricate themselves from this position which might not otherwise happen?

Mrs. White: The Spanish Government must give their opinion if they want us to take any such step. There has been no suggestion that such a step would satisfy them any more than the existing arrangement. Nor has there been any suggestion that an Isle of Man constitution would satisfy them.

Mr. Wall: Surely it would satisfy the United Nations. Gibraltar is still a colony, and the United Nations are against colonies. The Isle of Man is not a colony.

Mrs. White: That again is something which might be discussed with the people of Gibraltar who are closely concerned in this matter, to say the least. But it would be pointless to go through an exercise such as that if in the end we were no better off in our relationship with Spain. But I repeat that these are all matters which we are perfectly willing to discuss in proper circumstances. We have made that clear more than once.
Having made that clear, and having, as we had hoped, held out an olive branch in this constitutional matter which, we very much hoped would be accepted in the friendly spirit in which it was offered, one is sorry to have to record that since these offers were made we have had further difficulty. The right hon. Member for Preston, North has mentioned passports. As the House will


be aware, the final document in the White Paper was a formal note of protest from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this very matter. We have now received a formal reply to this document but it is still under study. It is full of legal arguments and I am not in a position to say anything further on this point this afternoon. It would in any event, be a matter for one of the Foreign Office Ministers to discuss in detail.
However, I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. I know that the whole question of the treatment of passports issued on behalf of Her Majesty, by whatsover officer was empowered to issue them, by certain of the Spanish authorities has caused the gravest offence. It has been felt that this was an insult to Her Majesty. These documents are issued in her name, and as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out, the way in which they were treated on certain occasions at La Linea suggested that there had been some improper exercise of the Royal Prerogative. This we entirely rebut and resent.
Exception was taken to a certain phrase about the Government of Gibraltar. Had we been asked for an explanation of this, if the phrase was causing offence, we could have explained that following the passing of the legislation concerning Commonwealth immigration in 1962 a general instruction was sent out to all dependent territories regardless of their constitutional position, whether they were still Crown Colonies, whether they were on the way to becoming independent or whatever other status they had.
For the purposes of the 1962 Act, Her Majesty's consuls in various parts of the world were told that in future passports for citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies were to be marked "Issued on behalf of the Government of" whatever the territory might be. There was nothing peculiar about this. It had no significance concerning the status of Gibraltar. All this could have been explained in the most friendly and sympathetic way had the matter been raised with us, as one would have hoped between friendly Powers instead of arbitrary action being taken.
I have stressed this a little because I know that it has caused the strongest possible feelings in Gibraltar, not only among Gibraltarians, but by United Kingdom citizens who had their passports renewed in Gibraltar during a certain period. We have of course put this matter right. It was important as a matter of principle, but one might say that it was almost a petty matter. We have altered the wording of new passports and replaced passports which might have caused trouble to the holder, and I am happy to report to the House that during this month only one passport has so far been queried on these grounds at the frontier. It has, however, meant a lot of bother and trouble to those concerned.

Mr. J. Amery: Am I to understand that a number have been allowed to pass?

Mrs. White: No. We have issued fresh passports, removing the phrase to which objection had been taken. To my mind, it seems an absurdly unnecessary exercise, but rather than have either people put to difficulty or documents issued in the name of Her Majesty insulted, it seemed to us that it was the practical thing to do, and we have done it. But this is not the kind of thing which leads to friendly relations between countries which, one would hope, would be friendly.
Another point which I must also mention and which we very much regret, and which has also been touched upon by the right hon. Member for Preston, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, is the allegation of smuggling. This also has aroused feelings in Gibraltar. Some hon. Members may have seen the document issued by the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce, which feels that its honour has been impugned by this allegation, which was given extremely wide currency in this country in an interview on "Panorama" on B.B.C. on 22nd February by a Minister of the Spanish Government, the Minister of Information and Tourism, who surely should have been in a better position to know the facts and should never have given currency to inaccuracies which were extremely damaging to the good name of Gibraltar. He said, for example, that
nearly 1,000 smuggling boats have been captured near Gibraltar, 40 by Spain in recent months.


Even if the 1,000 was a slip and he meant 100—I give him the credit of dividing it by ten—he mentioned
40 by Spain in recent months".
Our records indicate that since 1960—not in recent months, but over a period of four and a half years—some 37 vessels sailing from Gibraltar have been taken into custody by Spain or other Mediterranean countries for alleged smuggling. Thirty-seven since 1960 by Spain and other countries is very different from 40 by Spain in recent months.
The Spanish Minister of Information and Tourism then made a particularly hurtful suggestion that there was smuggling of marijuana from Gibraltar. To the best of our knowledge and belief, this is simply untrue. Such smuggling as there is of this obnoxious drug has been taking place from Ceuta and other places in North Africa, and not Gibraltar. We object strongly to a Minister in the Spanish Government making these public allegations. It is only right that we should rebut them.
There were various suggestions about cigarettes, whisky, and so on. Here again, the Spanish Government must know perfectly well that Gibraltar does not manufacture cigarettes. The comparisons that were given in the interview would, in any event, be invalid compared with a country which manufactured its cigarettes from imported tobacco. Quite apart from that, Gibraltar is a port at which many ships call, including a large number of tourist and cruise ships. Gibraltar also supplies other parts of the Mediterranean area with re-exports of large quantities of these commodities. I repeat that we have no reason to support that there is any large-scale smuggling from Gibraltar.
There is the occasional smuggling, which we are doing our best to stop as far as we can. The right hon. Member for Preston, North is perfectly correct. Some of it is done, if it is done at all, with the connivance of those on the Spanish side of the frontier. Again, however, we have offered and are willing to discuss with the Spanish authorities anything which they think would be helpful if this traffic is against their interests.
I turn now to matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, who opened the debate, asked me to refer concerning the well-being of the Gibraltarians. As the House will recall, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary asked his Senior Economic Adviser, Mr. Selwyn, to go to Gibraltar and make an analysis of the situation there. As I announced to the House in reply to a recent Question, the Gibraltar Government have decided to create a new post of Financial and Development Secretary. The officer will be taking up his duties in that position on 1st May, but he is already on the staff of the Government and he has already completed his examination of the Selwyn Report. This is now being considered in detail by the Council of Ministers.
We have said, and we repeat, that Her Majesty's Government, when requested by the Government of Gibraltar, will be glad to give assistance. We recognise, for example, that the housing of those who have had to leave their homes in Spain is bound to place an extra burden on the Government of Gibraltar. I do not think that the schooling will make very much difference, because a number of the children concerned came to Gibraltar in any event for education. I do not think that that is very much of a problem.
We must also make it clear that Gibraltar also has its own housing difficulties, and the two sides of this problem must be taken together. We would therefore actually earmark money for housing to assist the housing problem in general. Under the existing Colonial Development and Welfare Act two grants have been made, each of £100,000, one for 58 new flats to be constructed in the North Front District, and the other to cover the construction of a new secondary modern school for 350 boys in that area where housing development is taking place.
I am not in a position to say very much about the allocation of aid under the new Overseas Development Bill, because it has not yet been enacted. All that I can do is to assure the Government of Gibraltar that over the first three years of the five years for which that Bill will run they will have at least half as


much again in aid as they have been receiving in the latest period. We are not in a position to state the final allocation, but they can count on at least that level.
As regards technical assistance, Mr. Selwyn recommended that various matters should be looked at by experts, including land use, tourism, and so on. We have had a specific request for assistance with the establishment of a Development Corporation for Gibraltar. The Commonwealth Development Corporation has agreed to two of its officers going to Gibraltar next month to look carefully at the possibility of establishing an organisation and development corporation which will help with development there. There is also an expert on tourist facilities, development and reclamation of beaches, and so on, in Gibraltar at the present time.
We have also received co-operation from the Service Departments on the question raised by my hon. Friend of vacating the central areas of Gibraltar. They are doing this, although it must be recognised that some of the buildings have to be used at the moment for the temporary housing of refugees, and that the clearing and rebuilding will have to be carefully phased. In the meantime new married quarters have recently been completed. A further 272 are planned, and tenders are out for these new married quarters which will relieve space in the central areas which will be vacated.
At the moment the number of British subjects accommodated by the Gibraltar Government—some, of course, have had to find private accommodation—is almost 500. Some are still living in dormitories. The urgent need is to get them out of dormitories into accommodation in which some kind of family life is possible. In co-operation with the Gibraltar Government we are pressing ahead in these matters.
We are concerned about the effect of the restrictions on the tourist industry, and I hope very much that the various tourist firms will take note of what has been said by my hon. Friend, and by the right hon. Gentleman, too, as to the possibility of developing the tourist trade further with North Africa. It seems to me that there are distinct possibilities there.
We are also concerned that Gibraltar itself should improve its own facilities as a tourist resort. When completed, the new aerial ropeway will provide one of the finest views in the Mediterranean. It will not be ready for this season, but will be completed early next year in time for the next season, and should prove a great attraction for cruise ships and other ships to call in at Gibraltar. We have been in touch with shipping organisations in this country, and we hope that greater use will be made of the bunkering and other facilities in Gibraltar.
Although air traffic between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar has naturally fallen off, B.E.A. has been at pains to maintain a regular air service to Gibraltar and has, in the view of the Government, acted most responsibly. Although B.E.A. has been unable to increase services to the planned 15 a week this summer, it will operate 11 services, which is one more than the winter service. This is not a cut in the service. It is just that the summer service is not being increased to the extent that it was last year. I emphasise that there has been no cut in the service, and I hope that this will be fully understood. It is just that the increase this summer will not be of the order of the increase last summer.

Mr. J. Amery: I hope that what the hon. Lady has said will be clearly understood by the Press, because the Press has given an impression of a cut in the service. What the hon. Lady has said is very encouraging, and I am glad to hear it.

Mrs. White: I want to emphasise this, because, from the Press announcement, one would suppose that there had been a cut. That is not so. There is a slight increase of one service a week. The increase is not of the order that one would have hoped for. It is not as large as the increase last summer.
There are various other ways in which we hope we may be able to assist the people of Gibraltar during this difficult time. We are glad to have expressions from both sides of the House of our determination to do all that we can to help them, but what we all hope for is that this unhappy situation will be brought to an end. With regard to two matters which I have


mentioned, the constitutional question and smuggling, we shall be happy to have constructive discussions with representatives of the Spanish Government, but I am sure they will appreciate that we cannot be expected to enter into discussions until we see some sign that these arbitrary restrictions will be removed.

MERCHANT SHIPS (NUCLEAR PROPULSION)

3.18 p.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney: It is just a year since the House last had an opportunity to discuss what many of us believe to be a very important question to this country, the future of nuclear propulsion for nuclear ships, and it will be within the recollection of the House that an occasion on which was I was lucky enough to have the Adjournment debate about a month ago was thwarted as an incidental casualty of the rather shabby manoeuvre of the party opposite to avoid discussing a Bill introduced by one of my hon. Friends on the subject of old-age pensions.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to put my case forward today and to have it answered by the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who was such a firm ally during the debate on this subject a year ago, and whose excellent speech on that occasion I hope to quote from today. The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly the best person to reply to this debate, but I am a little surprised, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's remarks in New York yesterday, that that spearhead of technical advance, the right hon. Member the Minister of Technology, is not here, as perhaps the most important part of this subject concerns the Atomic Energy Authority.
Where is the right hon. Gentleman? Where is this new urge for technical advance? Where is the representative of this Ministry which will act as a stimulus to goad British industry in these great new endeavours? We on this side are somewhat disappointed at the present showing.
The Minister, the Government, and the country have been directly affected by what I believe to be a major failure of the Government, of Government Departments, and of the Atomic Energy Autho-

rity, to produce a viable means of developing nuclear propulsion for merchant ships in this great maritime country.
Exactly a year ago the hon. Member said:
This is a disgraceful history and, what is more perturbing, it is a suspicious one.
Now that the hon. Member has shared the responsibility of Government for six months I think that I carry the House with me in asserting that he now bears a considerable responsibility for developments in this important matter. He went on to say that the story of the last few years had been a
tragic history of indecision and vaccilation by the Government"—
now, more than one Government—
and there has been a disgraceful series of frustrations that has had to be borne by British industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 246–9.]
It is always a charming spectacle to see such a gallant poacher turned gamekeeper. I hope that in his reply today the hon. Member will give us evidence that the skill he displayed in his former job, which was very great, has not been lost.
Not only has British industry been let down; in my opinion, the country has been let down in this major sphere of possible technological advance. I will not talk about a break-through—analogies being dangerous—but the advent of nuclear power for surface propulsion not only for the Merchant Navy but the Royal Navy is perhaps as great a development as was the transition from steam to diesel power which revolutionised many classes of merchant ships and warships at the beginning of the present century.
I will confine my remarks today, first, to the share which the Atomic Energy Authority has in these shortcomings. Secondly, I shall refer to the responsibility of other Ministers who have a direct responsibility for reorganisation at the moment and, thirdly, I shall put forward some constructive suggestions as to what can be done about the present situation.
I hope that the House will bear with me if I refer to a few dates in the history of this lamentable, long-drawn-out episode. I do not wish to go as far back as six years, when the possibility of


developing an atomic reactor was put to about six or eight firms and consortia to see what they could do about it; nor do I wish to refer to the decision which was taken in 1961—an absolutely correct decision, in the circumstances—not to proceed with the design of a tanker powered with a nuclear reactor.
It was quite wrongly said, in a reply to a Question on 25th February, that the Padmore Report had been debated on the floor of the House a year ago. It will be within the recollection of the House that that debate took place in April, and that Ministers had access, which we back benchers did not have—nor did the hon. Member—to the conclusions and substance of the Report, although it was not published until the following month. Therefore, that statement was incorrect.
On 10th December last year we had one of those cautious replies to which we have become used in the course of the terms of office of this Government and the former Government, that the Government were undertaking a review—one of the many reviews being carried out by the present Government—and that two consortia of shipbuilders or shipowners were involved.
On 23rd February we had a surprising reply to a Question, telling us that the Government were continuing the review and were ready—this was in reply to another Question—to proceed to prepare a design for a reactor to be installed and tested in a nuclear ship. That was a pretty wide statement. It was made by the Minister of Technology. On 25th February we were informed that no talks were now in progress with the consortia which had been previously mentioned, and that the Atomic Energy Authority had not completed its review of all the questions involved. That was a very different matter from what we were told three months previously, namely, that the Government were undertaking a review. Can this be schismatic—the old story of the two Popes, Technology and the Board of Trade? We wonder, because of the utter lack of any precise information.
On 2nd and 4th March we had replies to Questions and one very important statement, namely, that the Vulcain reactor together with the B.P.W.R. pres-

surised water reactor, was still under consideration for marine purposes. I shall come back to that point later on. I have the utmost respect for the Atomic Energy Authority as an organisation, and for the members of its staff as individuals—many of whom I know personally. I have visited several of its establishments and my respect for it has, if anything, increased.
There is no question but that it has done magnificent work, perhaps at inordinate cost to the country; I do not know. We must judge by results, which are lamentably few at present. This organisation suffers, and has suffered, under Conservative Governments as well as under the present Government, from all the evils of a nationalised monopoly—from the jealousies of private enterprise which are inseparable from this form of nationalised monopoly, no matter what may be the colour of the Government in Whitehall. It has the one overriding disadvantage of being judge and jury in its own case in respect of most important matters in which it is in direct competition with private enterprise. That state of affairs, which alone must distort the fabric of our technological advance, must be looked at very closely if we are to get very far in the future.
I want to give a few examples of what this state of affairs has brought about. In 1959, we had a steady campaign, by the Atomic Energy Authority, ridiculing the type of reactor known as the boiling water reactor, which had been the prime favourite of that organisation. It will be within the recollection of those hon. Members who study these matters that that principle has long since been dropped by the Authority, and that the pressurised water reactors, which were ridiculed at that time, are now the order of the day. I think that that point is controvertible.
Secondly, there is the acceptance by the A.E.A. of the moderator principle of the spectral shift for marine purposes—via the Belgians; I will not go into the history which is well known to hon. Gentlemen opposite—at a time when spectral shift had been examined in the United States by, I believe, a commercial organisation employing Mr. Edland, the inventor of this process, and had been discarded by them.
Here I come to the point in the replies which were given very recently that the Vulcain, incorporating the spectral shift, is still on the cards for selection as a prototype merchant ship reactor. If that is so, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will reply specifically to one question. Was Vulcain, incorporating spectral shift, offered to the consortia with which the Government have been having discussions, or was only one reactor offered? On that reply—I must say this—hangs the good faith of the Government in this matter.
I believe they have, in fact, discarded this principle—

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): It is the Administration of the hon. and gallant Gentleman whose good faith hangs on the test which he is applying, and not that of our Administration.

Commander Courtney: Apart from the small reference to politics which I introduced at the beginning of my speech—and my natural soreness, incidentally, at having to start 20 minutes late, but I will not go into that—I had hoped that the Minister—the poacher-turned-game- keeper, as I have described him—could now think and speak nationally for his Government on a matter which is of the greatest national importance, and for which hon. Members must be prepared to take responsibility for our Government's mistakes as well as the mistakes and shortcomings of the present Government.
Why is it that in 1963, having discarded the integral boiling water reactor which had been so cracked up in 1959—this was done very quietly and we had to dig and delve to find out about it—and gone on with the Vulcain, they introduced the notion of a new type reactor incorporating the integral principle of the V.P.W.R. with the I.B.R. and they called it the burnable poison pressurised water reactor? So far as we know, it is almost identical. I say "almost identical," because we cannot, with the information available to us, go into the full details. But it is suspiciously close to the type of Babcock and Wilcox C.N.S.G.—consolidated nuclear steam generator—which had been developed at a time when spectral shift had been discarded

by its inventors. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us a little real information on this rather important point.
We have had this rather suspicious development of the B.P.W.R., incorporating the features of the one discarded and the one which I am perfectly certain has been discarded, although that is not admitted.
Finally, it is clear—this may be the reason why I was told, rather shortly, in reply to a Question the other day that the Padmore Committee had dissolved at the moment of giving its Report in May, 1964—that there were minority opinions on the technical panel the Atomic Energy Authority and that the Government have taken no practical notice of minority reports, backed up as they were by the late Captain Atkins, who was a friend and colleague of at least two hon. Members on this side of the House and who passed certain technical criticisms of Government policy at that time, only part of which—I must admit—have been shown to be correct. It would be a handsome gesture on the part of the Minister if he made some acknowledgement in his reply to the opinion expressed by the late Captain Atkins.
There is the responsibility of other Ministries in this tremendous socialised reorganisation of the Government. We have a situation in which, during the course of six years—here I have to blame my own Government as well—responsibility for shipbuilding has passed from the Admiralty, first to the Ministry of Transport and now to the President of the Board of Trade.
How can we expect, with that kind of shuffling around, to provide the decision making authority which is so badly needed on the practical side of this question, and which is specifically called for in the Padmore Report, which, if the hon. Gentleman needs any reminding, I have here to quote from? We have—there can be very little doubt about the reasons underlying this, the suspicions and doubts in industrial circles—a remarkable lack of enthusiasm for this revolutionary departure in technology by shipowners and shipbuilders, especially shipowners.
I should like to mention here the responsibility of the diversity of Ministries, which seems to me seriously to affect the future of this question. That is, the


apparent apartness of the Admiralty Board in these matters, observing that the United States Navy already has a half a dozen surface ships nuclear propelled. Our own Admiralty Board has a great and enduring interest in this means of propulsion. Why is it that we cannot be told of a close association between the merchant shipping side, which is now the hon. Gentleman's responsibility, and the Admiralty Board on the development of this principle, the staff requirements of which are steadily approaching those of the surface warships and merchant ships as time goes on? I shall in a moment be drawing attention to that curious lack of coordination. I shall be making certain proposals.
There is a multiplicity of Ministries, committees and technical panels, some of which report and are then dissolved, some of which had minority opinions which are suppressed. There are consortia with whom conversations are maintained. There are foreigners. There is Belgo-Nucleaire, with whom the Government and the Atomic Energy Authority had an agreement which must be observed. Their political backwash must be borne in mind when making decisions on a vexed question like the Vulcain. Decision in these circumstances seems to be impossible. The Government should do something about it.
Finally, what can we do to recover the position which we seem to have been losing steadily, not only to the Russians and the Americans—who have had, admittedly, uneconomic nuclear-powered surface ships at sea for many years—but the Germans' building the "Otto Hahn" with a copy of the B.P.W.R.? It was perhaps the other way round, but the same type of burnable poison pressurised water reactor, though we were told a year ago that it was somewhat behind the B.P.W.R. The Japanese, the Norwegians, the Dutch and the French are all pressing ahead with this problem. We are perhaps the oldest maritime nation in the world, still with the largest maritime fleet in the world, yet we are apparently doing nothing. In a year we have not even debated this important matter in the House of Commons.
I believe that it is time that the Government took steps to direct the Atomic Energy Authority—I apologise in advance

for saying this to those of my friends who are on the Authority—to operate a little more in the national interest and not in that of a self-contained monopoly, secretive, scientifically-based organisation which it is, efficient though it may be. I also believe that the hon. Gentleman should make a frank admission that he has at last—on the advice of many people, including the late Captain Atkins—thrown spectral shift out of the window for modern propulsion.
It may be welcome on shore, but, as has been excellently put, a ship going to sea with a bulky spectral shift reactor, compared with one with B.P.W.R., is rather like an aeroplane powered by petrol compared with an aeroplane powered by kerosene. The danger factor is so much greater, although the economic advantages of the one may offset them slightly. At sea, as those of us who have personal experience know, one cannot monkey around with these things in a Force 8 with a hurricane blowing up, as the "Savannah" discovered two years ago in an episode which is still not known to the general public.
This new departure requires a decision-making authority. Here I come again to the necessity of giving authority to someone, not shuffling it off on someone else—except, perhaps, the one authority which already has 10 years' experience of nuclear research and which possesses all the design and ship-building capacity, correlated, as it has been for centuries, namely, the Royal Navy and the Admiralty Board representing the Royal Navy. It seems to me to be the one way at this late stage of retrieving a near disaster which seems to be almost upon us in this very important question. Undoubtedly, the hon. Member is the best man to reply to the debate.
If we are to see this great technological urge, so much advertised before the election and since by the Prime Minister, translated into fact by hon. Members opposite, let them get away from doctrinaire theories about the reorganisation of government and let them get down to practical matters. Let them look at the Padmore Report, controversial though it is in many points. Other hon. Members have studied it, and I have studied it. Let them take that little passage out of the report about a decision-making authority. For heaven's sake, both in the


Atomic Energy Authority and in the Board of Trade, which are handling these matters, let us have a decision.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: I intervene for only a few minutes, and I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I am not quite sure whether I had an argument with the bell push this morning or not, but I have been detained elsewhere for a short time.
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on having initiated the discussion. He cast his remarks in a most reasonable fashion—in a non-party fashion, as befits the sort of discussion which is taking place, where people on both sides of the House have interests and experience in shipping and naval matters. This is a most important subject from the point of view not only of the mercantile marine of this country but of ships and naval men in general. At Question Time this morning we heard one or two remarks which indicated that the shipbuilding and shipping industries of this country do not occupy the paramount position to which the hon. and gallant Member referred in the closing stages of his speech. I am afraid that I made one or two saucy remarks during Question Time on this subject.
But this is a rather more serious discussion, because there is no question but that the prosperity of this country has in the past depended very much upon the prosperity of the shipping industry and the power and tradition of the Royal Navy. It has seemed to me that over the last 10 or 20 years Britain as a maritime nation has been slipping year by year. I do not want to make any partisan point about this. The hon. and gallant Member himself confessed the responsibility of the Conservative Party for a good deal of this weakness.
Her Majesty's Government have been in office for only a comparatively short time.

Commander Courtney: Six months.

Mr. Hamling: I agree that we have been in power for six months, which is, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would

like me to put it this way, 3·11/12 per cent. of the time which his party was in office. I know that I cannot baffle the hon. and gallant Gentleman with science but perhaps I can with wit.
We cannot be expected, in such a short time, to accept responsibility for the decline of the British Mercantile Marine. Nor can we be held responsible for the Royal Navy during the past 13 years. The party opposite is responsible. Incidentally, the Front Bench opposite is magnificent in its loneliness this afternoon, so I suppose that we cannot attach responsibility to any individual on that bench at the moment.
I join with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in asking the Government to show a great deal more initiative in this subject than has been shown in recent years. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, we are the oldest mercantile Power in the world. We want to retain that position, not from the point of view of empty national prestige—although national pride is not something to be scorned at—but from the point of view of the work. wealth and happiness of every man and woman in this country.
I recall that some time ago an hon. Gentleman opposite objected to my attempting to participate in a debate on the white fish industry. He hazarded a doubt as to whether in West Woolwich there was any connection with the white fish industry. There is no direct connection, except that most of us in that area eat fish. That is why we have so much brain.
I come from a long line of merchant seamen, some of whom were engaged in the fishing industry. My father was a trimmer on the old "Baltic" and any hon. Member who knows anything about trimming and the old White Star Line will know that to do that job one had indeed to be a dedicated sailor.
Without going into the technical side of nuclear reaction as applied to nuclear shipping, if we are to progress as a shipping nation we must take advantage of all the latest developments in science and I most strongly commend, in the best spirit of non-partisanship, on this holy Thursday, the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East.

Mr. Patrick Wall: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. Member has already exhausted his right to speak.

3.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): I begin by rebutting the initial charge of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) against the present Administration and his chastisement of the Atomic Energy Authority. During 13 years of Tory Administration not one occasion was provided for a debate on any of the annual Atomic Energy Reports. This shows that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should turn his fire on his right hon. Friends who, of course, are not present on the Opposition Front Bench. That is how interested they are in nuclear propulsion and how interested they were in scientific matters, particularly the Atomic Energy Authority, when they were in power.

Commander Courtney: Where is the Minister of Technology?

Mr. Mason: The previous Administration has a shocking record in the matter of nuclear marine propulsion. They literally toyed with industries, especially those interested in nuclear engineering. They treated them rather like yo-yos on a string, lifting them up to the heights at one moment and dropping them down to the depths of despondency the next. One consortium was left dangling in midair by the previous Administration, and is now anxiously awaiting the new Administration's decision—

Commander Courtney: Still waiting?

Mr. Mason: Still waiting—and it has a right to wait, too. Because of the mess on atomic energy and nuclear marine propulsion that the previous Administration left behind, it is essential that we should have a very close look at and a fresh review of all that has happened previously.
Since 1956 there has been a history of committees, vacillation, passing the buck, and so forth, with no progress being made. We had the Galbraith Committee, and we had the Padmore Committee. Designs were submitted from industry. We had the atomic energy joint project with Belgium. Then the then Minister of Transport and the then

Prime Minister started leading the nuclear engineers and the shipbuilding industry up the garden path by suggesting that there were two reactors which were most promising. On 11th February, 1963, the Government stated:
Both these systems offer the prospect of being developed as economically attractive commercial propositions.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, one of those systems quickly faded out, and another came in. We cannot keep kidding the nuclear engineering industry and the shipbuilders in this way.
I have quoted what was said on 11th February, 1963. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that on 28th April last year the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) who was speaking officially for the Government, said:
It is fair, and I must say it in order to put the position candidly before the Committee, to say that there has been a shift against the economics of nuclear marine propulsion in the last 12 months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1964; Vol. 694. c. 275.]
So, first, we have a statement by the Prime Minister, and then, a few months later, a contrary statement by the then Minister for Education and Science.
I therefore frankly say that there is no economic nuclear propulsion unit just around the corner—that must be recognised—and our present review is to ascertain whether, and to what extent, public money should be spent on more research and development or whether we should risk a nuclear-driven ship as a floating experimental test bed—and of the latter I say, quite frankly, that it will not be done by Government moneys alone.
I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman failed in his attempt to emulate me when I was a "mechanoid" on the Opposition benches on this subject. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is puzzled by that recent new word, it means something that spits fire and atomic power—

Mr. Hamling: Is a mechanoid any relation to a dalek?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that it is any relation. It is a fictional machine that is supposed to spit fire and nuclear power.
I was pleased to have the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). It is right, as he suggested, that this subject must be treated very seriously in view of our pre-eminence, as it has been for so long, in shipping. I can assure him that it is being treated seriously, but the previous Administration got themselves in such a mess over the matter that this review is absolutely essential.
The idea of building a British nuclear ship is one which must have great appeal to anybody who is concerned about the modernisation and technical advance of Britain and who is at the same time anxious to maintain our tradition as a great maritime nation. But it may be useful to start by making sure we are all thinking about the same thing when we talk of a nuclear ship. Such a ship is unlikely to look very different from other ships. Its engine will be roughly the same except that it will be a steam turbine rather than the slow running diesel with which so many ships are now powered. The essential difference is simply that a carefully shielded nuclear reactor will replace the boiler and oil feel tanks. The successful development of such a propulsion unit, like other technical advances which have been made in marine propulsion, could be of great economic and technical importance but we shall not further this advance by overstating the case for it.
Reference has been made by the hon. and gallant Member to the Report of the Padmore Committee on "Nuclear Propulsion in Merchant Ships" which was set up in November, 1961 and whose report appeared in May, 1964. Two points made in it have never to my knowledge been contradicted. The first was that
while there can be no certainty in the matter, there is a probability that nuclear power will ultimately be used in merchant ships".
The second was that the next logical step in development would be to design and build a prototype ship using a reactor as its source of power.
There is no doubt that we could design and build a working reactor and produce a hull and engine configuration suitable for operating with it. But the building of a prototype ship is not an end in itself. The prototype could not be expected to be an economic proposition:

the question is whether its construction and testing would provide sufficient information to lead to a design for a genuinely economic merchant ship. This in turn leads to two more difficult questions. When is nuclear power likely to prove economic for merchant ships and at what stage would it be best for a country with limited resources to throw in such resources as it can devote to this particular field of technology?
The history of reactor development on land shows how difficult it is to determine such questions in advance. In the case of competition between oil and nuclear power as a means of marine propulsion, the issue is even more complex. Increasing size has favoured the economics of nuclear power on land: at sea the problem is to beat oil in power units which, compared with land-based reactors, would be very small. At sea the cost per horsepower may not be the only factor. The size and weight of the reactor with its shielding as against the size and weight of the main boilers and fuel in a conventional ship may also be important factors. There are indeed various schools of thought as to the marine application in which nuclear power is likely first to become economic. In the foreseeable future the nuclear reactor is only likely to compare with conventional propulsion when the power requirement is high. Hence some expect it to be tried out first in the very biggest ships of, say, 200,000 deadweight tons carrying capacity.

Commander Courtney: Or perhaps warships, where the power requirement is greater?

Mr. Mason: As the hon. and gallant Members knows, the Americans have already embarked on this course. Most, if not all, of these big ships—of 200,000 deadweight tons—are likely to be tankers, and it is doubtful whether oil tankers will lead the way in a change-over from oil fuel to nuclear power. Others think that it is the super-fast small cargo ship which might be expected to use nuclear power first largely because in a conventional ship the fuel consumption needed for really fast sailing would be so high as to reduce the carrying space of the ship below economic limits.
It is very difficult to assess the evidence bearing on these problems. They are


partly technical in so far as they depend on how successful we can be in evolving from a prototype ship a commercially attractive form of marine reactor. They are partly economic since the commercial attraction of nuclear propulsion depends on the costs and advantages of the two methods of propulsion.
The hon. and gallant Member mentioned what is happening abroad. We must certainly take account of what is happening overseas. The Russian breaker and the projected Japanese oceanographic survey ship merely show that the reactor may have potentialities for such highly specialised uses. The U.S. "Savannah" is of a somewhat old design; this vessel has not led, and it is doubtful if the German ship now building, the "Otto Hahn", will lead directly to a really economic design. Other countries have, like us, been exploring the possibilities but are no doubt facing the same uncertainties as we are.
For all countries whose resources are too limited for them to be able to afford prestige projects, there is need to examine carefully not only the chances of expenditure on a prototype leading to the successful development of a design for an economic merchant vessel, but also the benefits which could he expected to accrue from such success. Initially, at any rate, the industries most likely to benefit would be those concerned with the hardware and "know-how" of nuclear and marine propulsion.
These benefits would depend on the extent to which the design we evolved from the prototype ship was superior to those developed elsewhere. Shipbuilders and shipowners might similarly expect benefits which it is not easy to assess at this stage. They would, for example, gain experience in any special problems of building and operating nuclear ships. The value of these benefits would depend largely on the type of ship for which a successful design of nuclear propulsion proved most suitable. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the future prosperity of these industries depends on our success in the nuclear ship field, but it would be equally wrong to suggest that success in this field could not in due course be of great significance for them.
These considerations have to be weighed against the cost of a nuclear ship project. The Padmore Group considered that a development programme would cost some £15 million over about 5 years and envisaged a continuing programme of research and development beyond that period, the cost and extent of which could not be predicted. But once we are committed to put resources into such a project experience shows that it is by no means easy to redirect them and write off the effect so far, as hopes of success gradually fade. Hon. Members opposite know that full well.
So far, industry has shown little enthusiasm for bearing the costs, or even a proportion of the costs, in excess of those of building and operating a conventional ship equivalent to the proposed nuclear ship. It is indeed disappointing that the industries most likely to benefit have thus left it to the Government to take all the real risks. The Government have in these circumstances no alternative but to conclude that at this stage the firms concerned see little commercial benefit arising from such a project. This is a pointer of great significance. I am wondering to what extent shipping, shipbuilding and nuclear engineering are really interested.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman showed great interest in the choice of reactor system which might be used for a prototype ship—Vulcain, B.P.W.R., and so on. The main decision is whether it is worth while to proceed with a nuclear ship in view of the uncertainty whether sufficient technical advance can be made with any of the reactor types at present available to achieve the hoped-for economic benefits. The Padmore Committee's view was that the choice should lie between the Vulcain which used spectral shift and the B.P.W.R., which is based on a different system of moderation for control of the reactor. The technical work which led to the Committee's recommendation was done some time ago and, if it were decided to go ahead with the project, the latest information on reactor types would naturally have to be reviewed. But in the absence of some new development or later evidence, the Committee's general view of the advantages of one of these two types might be expected to prevail. There is no question but that both of


these types would function effectively and one or other is likely to be as good as, if not better than, any which have been so far proposed.
I refer now to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about C.N.S.G.3. This also applies to the 630 Mark V and to various American designed reactors which have come to the fore. Claims have been made from time to time in respect of reactors other than Vulcain or B.P.W.R., to the effect that these reactors have only to be ordered and are ready for installation in a nuclear ship. I assure the House that this is not just so. The designs for these reactor systems exist. Some have had a coniderable effort put into them, but they still require further development, possibly including the building of a land-based prototype before a seagoing reactor design could be worked out.

Commander Courtney: Would this apply to the C.N.S.G. type reactor in the German merchant ship "Otto Hahn"?

Mr. Mason: It depends on the type of hull. If one looks at the Vulcain, the B P.W.R., the C.N.S.G. or the 630 Mark V, any one of the possible marine propulsion units, each would have to be freshly adapted and indeed modified in design according to the type of ship we were putting it in, whether a 15,000 ton, a 100,000 ton or a 200,000 ton dead weight ship.

Commander Courtney: rose—

Mr. Mason: No, I cannot give way. I have fully explained to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the difficulty there is with any of these units, including the C.N.S.G. or the 630 Mark V which he has mentioned, in that they would have to be altered according to the type of ship.
I realise that there is a strong current of opinion in the House on this matter, but there is a strong current of opinion in the United States which favours a programme of relatively small nuclear-powered ships. As I understand it, this

is based partly on the fact that the United States merchant fleet in any case depends so heavily on Government financial support and partly on the possibility that the ships might serve in a reserve defence as well as a civil rôle. We do not support our merchant fleets in this way, particularly in peacetime, and never have done. It has been suggested that there is a case for building a naval surface ship incorporating nuclear power and that this might provide a fruitful method of advance. I know that the hon. and gallant Member is particularly keen on this. He will remember that my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy indicated in the House recently that this is a possibility which is certainly being thought about.
There are advantages and disadvantages about any such scheme and no firm conclusions can yet be reached. What is clear, however, is that although there would be some interaction between possible Royal Navy and merchant shipping applications of nuclear propulsion there would be major differences in requirements and design and it would be misleading to suggest that the transition from one field to another would be a simple one.
To sum up, for the reasons which I have indicated, the Government considered that they had no alternative but to go into the whole matter afresh. They have so far had only a fraction of the time spent by the previous Government, who still did not reach a decision. The Government are not yet ready to indicate what their decision will be. I must ask the House—and I make no apology for it after six months compared with the previous 13 years—to be patient a little longer. It is much more important to reach a sensible decision than to embark upon a course which might soon be regretted. Views which have been expressed on both sides of the House will be taken fully into account, and I am personally sorry that it is not possible for me to say more than this at present.

ROAD SAFETY

4.9 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I am most grateful for the opportunity of raising the twin problems of road safety and traffic congestion and I should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for being present to reply to the various points of which I have given him notice.
Except at Question Time, this is the first occasion in this Parliament that these subjects have been discussed. It is particularly appropriate that we should discuss them at the beginning of an Easter holiday when, if the past is any guide, there will be, unfortunately a number of fatal accidents on our roads.
During the five days of the Easter holiday last year, 68 persons were killed on the roads. That was the lowest figure since 1957, when there were 4 million fewer vehicles. In the whole of 1964, over 7,800 people were killed, over 95,000 were seriously injured and 282,000 were slightly injured. The total number of casualties, including the slightly injured, was 8 per cent. higher than in 1963 but, as the volume of traffic is estimated to have been 11 per cent. higher, there seems to have been a slight improvement.
A great deal of effort is being devoted to the problem by the Ministry, and much valuable work is being done by the Road Research Laboratory in investigating the causes of accidents and ways to reduce them. I have just been reading the excellent book "Research on Road Traffic", recently published for the Road Research Laboratory by the Stationery Office. Although it is somewhat technical in places, it makes most encouraging reading for all who are interested in these problems, and I hope that it has a wide circulation.
One non-technical point made in the table on page 479 of this book is that the cost of road accidents in 1962 is estimated to have been no less than £175 million. That, of course, takes no account of the human suffering and bereavement which cannot be measured in money terms. I understand that the cost of traffic congestion is estimated at about £500 million a year, taking all
the factors into account. Thus, apart

from the appalling human tragedy, there is plenty of incentive, if incentive be needed, for the Treasury, above all, let alone the Ministry of Transport, to do something to solve these problems.
I have spoken of the twin problems of road safety and traffic congestion because, in many respects, they go hand in hand. Over the last 20 years, both at home and abroad, it has been proved that the building of motorways not only reduces traffic congestion, but cuts down accidents as compared with conditions on the roads which the motorways replace. Therefore, the more motorways we can build the better. I hope that the Government will press ahead with the programme which they inherited from the previous Government and, if possible, improve on it.
Yet there are still accidents on motorways themselves. According to an Answer given by the Minister of Transport to a Question of mine on 2nd April, during the year ended 28th February last there were 30 fatal accidents on the M.1 and its two spurs, M.10 and M.45, causing the death of 41 persons. The M.1 and the other motorways are almost perfect roads. There are no pedestrians, there are no cyclists, there is no cross-traffic, there is no danger of a head-on collision unless a car or lorry happens to cross the centre strip. There should be no accidents at all.
The only kinds of traffic which do not mix very well are slow-moving heavy lorries and fast cars. Even they can collide on a motorway only through bad driving on someone's part or, perhaps, through defects in the vehicles. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some details of those 30 accidents on the M.1 and of any accidents which he thinks worthy of note on the M.6, if he has such details, and explain how they occurred. If any publicity can be given to them, it may, possibly, act as a deterrent to some dangerous drivers.
There are also the one-way systems, especially those introduced in various parts of Greater London in recent years. "Research on Road Traffic" shows that these systems reduce accidents by 30 per cent. In answer to another Question from me on 5th April, the Minister gave


details of the effects of some of the one-way systems introduced in the London area during the past two years. All but one of those showed a reduction in total accidents compared with the period before the systems were introduced, and all but two showed reductions in accidents to pedestrians.
One of the two was in the Borough of Brent, in High Street, Harlesden. Apparently, there has there been a 75 per cent, increase in accidents to pedestrians in the first nine months. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) here; I am sure that it interests him as much as it does me. The other was at South Kensington Station, where there was a 14 per cent. increase in accidents to pedestrians and an 18 per cent. increase in total accidents.
I wonder why there should be increases at those two systems when of the other systems nine showed reductions in accidents to pedestrians, 10 showed reductions in total accidents, and the two or three others showed virtually no change. I hope that the Minister can give some reasons for these two black spots. All the systems apparently showed decreases in the journey time taken for vehicles to go round the circuits.
I hope that on the record of those systems and previous ones introduced we shall have more of them brought in, whenever it can be done without interfering too much with local amenities, not only in London but in many other places a well.
A few years ago there was greater reluctance to bring in one-way systems, certainly in London. I remember the struggle that some of us had to persuade the authorities to make Jermyn Street, Westminster, one-way, although it was clearly absurd in that narrow street to allow traffic in both directions to meet head on as it had to do when cars were parked on each side of the road. However, as a result of the perseverance of several hon. Members on both sides of the House, eventually one-way working was introduced, and it has, of course, been made permanent. There is hardly an example of a street where one-way working has been introduced where it has been abolished and the street has returned to two-way working. I believe that there is one example in Oxford.
Whoever it was in the London traffic set-up—I do not know whether it was the Ministry, the L.C.C. or the police—who used to object to one-way systems seems now to have been well and truly converted, and I hope that it will remain so.
There is also the problem of roundabouts, which, on the whole, I do not like because they take up a great deal of space and are not always easy to drive round. I always think that Hyde Park Corner is one of the most nerve-wracking places to go round anywhere in the country. However, I understand that roundabouts reduce accidents compared with traffic lights and similar junctions. A few years ago the deputy surveyor of Middlesex County Council published some facts about 12 junctions with traffic lights and 12 similar junctions with roundabouts. The balance in regard to accidents came down in favour of the roundabouts. So, obviously, we must allow roundabouts.
The "Give way to traffic on the right experiment at certain roundabouts, notably the one at the end of Lambeth Bridge not far from here, seems to have been most successful. According to "Research on Road Traffic", this system has reduced accidents by 40 per cent., and apparently it has also eliminated the locking of traffic at roundabouts which we know occurs all too often and, indeed, is probably taking place in Parliament Square at this very moment if any normal afternoon is a guide. I hope that the "Give way to traffic on the right" system can be extended eventually to all roundabout systems.
I have a word to say about street naming and numbering. I am not sure whether this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I think it was the Ministry of Housing and Local Government which, two or three years ago, sent out circulars drawing the attention of local authorities to this problem—unfortunately, with very little result. I suggest that, even if it has no responsibility at the moment, it is high time the Ministry of Transport took some responsibility for this because road safety enters into it a great deal.
After all, if a driver who has no passenger has to take his eyes off the


road to look for the name of a street, or the number of a house, or shop, he is a danger to other road users. Naturally, he has to go slowly, and so blocks the traffic behind him. The naming of streets often leaves much to be desired. It should be absolutely perfect in that there should be signs on both sides of every street at every road junction.
The best system which I have ever seen is that in West Berlin where there are posts at corners with the names of both streets. The posts are at a height from which the names can be seen very clearly. I know that that means an increase in street furniture and is perhaps undesirable from that point of view, but, whether on posts or buildings, street names should be at a level and at a place at which they can be easily seen without being obstructed, possibly by parked vehicles. The fact that some local authorities have been slow about this is clear from the result of two surveys carried out by the A.A. This showed that one-third of the local authorities originally circularised have done nothing to make an improvement in street naming in the period between the two surveys.
Street numbering is often completely non-existent, especially on new shopping estates. Where there are these glossy new facia boards which are the fashion in modern shopping districts, there is often no number at all. This is disgraceful and absolutely inexcusable and I hope that the Ministry will do something to improve this standard.
I now turn to the subject of pedestrian crossings in St. James's Park. I know that this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Building and Works rather than the Ministry of Transport, because this is a Royal park. I am referring to the lack of these crossings, because there are no zebra crossings with beacons in the Royal parks. I know that there have been conversations between the hon. Gentleman's Ministry and the Ministry of Public Building and Works and I hope that he has found out why there are no crossings in St. James's Park. I have always wondered. It must be 30 years now since zebra crossings were originally introduced. I cannot help thinking that someone inside the Ministry of Public Building and Works does not like zebra crossings.
The police and park keepers help at some points in St. James's Park, but outside Buckingham Palace, where, in the summer months, there are always many visitors, even on what is called Spur Road, which leads from the Victoria Memorial down to Birdcage Walk, there are no fixed crossing places. Pedestrians trying to get across Spur Road or to the Victoria Memorial to watch activities in the Palace have to dash across whenever they think that they are most likely to be able to do so. The police are there to help at the busiest times, but they cannot always be on duty there and it is particularly difficult for foreign visitors, who may not understand our traffic system. I hope that something can be done to improve facilities for pedestrians at these places.
I also informed the hon. Gentleman that I would ask about the controlled crossing experiments in Harrow Road and other places, but since doing so, I have found an Answer to a Question announcing that the experiment is to continue for a further period because of rather inconclusive results so far. I hope that the system will be extended, because something like that is needed in busy shopping areas.
Surely we have reached the point when we are entitled to expect rather more cooperation from pedestrians than we are now getting. They should not dash across the road in front of a stream of moving traffic, with the possible danger of slipping, particularly in high-heeled shoes, and being run over. Nor should they saunter across a light-controlled crossing when the lights are against them, as one often sees in many parts of London and other cities.
In West Berlin, I was once abruptly ticked off by a point-duty policeman for crossing against his signal, although there was absolutely nothing coming which was near enough for me to worry about. We know that in many other places there are penalties for infringing these regulations. Pedestrian crossing systems like that in Harrow Road with guard rails are a physical way of preventing people from doing that. One does not like inflicting penalties on people, but it might be necessary to do so in this case. I hope that the system will be brought into operation in many other places.
I wish to make four short points. On the question of traffic signals, I feel that the amber light should never show in both directions at once. I hope that this will be gradually altered all over the country. It creates danger because drivers are apt to start on the amber and red and drivers corning the other way fly across on the amber before it changes to red. I therefore hope that we shall eventually see an end of all amber phases.
I wonder what the position is about trafficators on vehicles. Is it the Ministry's intention, after a certain date, to make amber the compulsory colour? If my memory serves me right, about seven or eight years ago that was decided but never acted upon. I think that it has been shown that over the last 10 or 12 years amber is the best colour. It is certainly distinctive and I hope that eventually some regulation will be brought in to enforce that.
I hope that the box junction experiment has now ceased to be an experiment. It has been most successful in all the places where it has been introduced. I hope that it will be a permanent feature of busy crossroads all over the country. Two busy intersections divide the two parts of the new Borough of Brent. One is the junction of the North Circular Road with Harrow Road and the other the junction of the North Circular Road with Neasden Lane. I should like to ask when they will be improved. I know that there is an interim improvement scheme for the Harrow Road junction and a more permanent underpass scheme for Neasden Lane. At peak hours both junctions are very congested, specially with traffic from Wembley and further afield coming into the centre of the city, and, of course, going out again in the evening.
The long-term scheme for the underpass at Neasden has, to my mind, one appalling disadvantage. It means the removal of about 100 houses. I only wish that something less expensive in housing could be devised. I am wondering whether this is the Ministry's final word on this problem, because in the Brent area we are very short of housing.
On driving standards in general, I believe that they can best be improved with the help of the police in patrolling roads and by the very presence of the police acting as a deterrent to many careless

drivers and by prosecution in the case of the flagrant examples of bad driving. I understand that the Americans have found that, as a result of introducing teenage driving instruction in schools and certain American States, there has been a reduction of 40 per cent. in the accident rate of drivers between 18 and 21.
I wonder whether the Minister has any information about accident proneness of young drivers in this country. My impression is that many drivers who ignore speed limits, or who are obviously driving too fast for the conditions, are youngsters in that age group, sometimes perhaps just showing off. There is a saying—of American origin, I think—that the greatest menaces on the road are those under 21 driving at over 65 and those over 65 driving at under 21. I do not know about the latter point, but I hope that the Ministry will take into account the American experience to see whether there is any possibility of imitating it over here.
It is only by methods such as these that we can hope to reduce the appalling toll of the road from which we all suffer and which we would all like to see greatly reduced.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) for choosing this subject for debate on the eve of a bank holiday. We were told this morning in, I think, every local national newspaper that a record Easter is expected and that all previous bank holiday records for traffic on the roads are likely to be broken. It is expected by the Automobile Association that 10 million vehicles will be on the road at the holiday peak and that 30 million people will he on the move throughout the country. Already, the normal procedure of a bank holiday is under way.
There is certainly nothing very holy about a system which will give us the casualty figures which we know we can expect on the radio and television and in the Press by Tuesday showing that a vast number of people have been killed or injured in road accidents. I hope that somewhere along the line, people will stop talking about road accidents and will refer to them as road incidents or crimes,


caused in the main by impatience, incompetence and unselfishness.
As the hon. Member for Wembley, South has said, pedestrians must bear a fair share of the blame. We all know about jay walkers. What frightens me to death many times at a busy road junction is the mother with a pram who starts to cross the road and then looks to the left and to the right to see whether any traffic is coming. It is not entirely the fault of the motorist.
Our present system of national bank holidays carries some of the responsibility. We incite murder and mayhem by the way we go about it. I wonder whether discussion could take place between local and national organisations about ways of avoiding everyone taking their holidays at the some date. We might take the example of Lancashire and the cotton towns, where our national wakes weeks are staggered. Surely it would be possible to devise a system by which annual bank holidays were staggered. In Lancashire again, bank holidays vary from town to town. Some take Whit Monday and others Trinity Monday. When some take August bank holiday, others take the September weekend. I wonder whether this arrangement could be taken up by people elsewhere.
I should like to make a point about the work of local road safety committees. Until 1960, a local authority of which I have details received a 50 per cent. grant towards the cost of the work of a local road safety committee. Voluntary work can do tremendous good by bringing down the national figures, which sometimes can be so large that they have no particular bearing to what happens in one's own locality. Since 1960, however, the grant which the local authority received for this work through either the general grant or the rate deficiency grant has been only 40 per cent. Ten per cent. may not be very much when a small amount of money is involved, but it is important to a local authority. If there is a way in which extra money could be made available to local authorities for this work, it would be money well spent.
I should like to say a word on driving tests. I am grateful for the trouble which my hon. Friend the Minister has taken

to give me detailed information in reply to some Questions which I asked on 2nd April. In reply to my Question asking how many driving tests had been taken in the past 10 or 11 years, the figures were extremely illuminating. In 1955, the total was roughly 1 million; in 1960, 1½ million; and in 1964, almost 2 million. This is a remarkable increase over the last ten years. At the same time, the figures show that the keenness or the severity of the driving test is being gradually increased. In 1955, the percentage of passes was 54; in 1960, 51; and in 1964, 48. There is at least a certain severity and restriction here.
The figures given by my right hon. Friend the Minister indicate that it is easier to pass a driving test in some parts of the country than others. My right hon. Friend gave me figures for a wide range of testing stations. In certain industrial areas the average for a pass at the first or second attempt is 47 or 48 per cent.; there is no real difference between those areas.
I find it hard to understand why the testing place in Salisbury should average 52 per cent. of passes. One has a 50–50 chance of passing, but in Lincoln only one in three has a chance of passing the driving test. The Autocar of 9th April asks whether consideration should be given to a standard national test. Ideally one would require disused aerodromes and other large open spaces where drivers were kept apart from the traffic. There could then be an identical test for every part of the country. I hope that some consideration will be given to that point.
In answer to another question, the Minister of Transport said that techniques for future developments in regard to the test were being considered. I ask him to bear in mind two points. The hon. Gentleman referred to direction indicators. It seems strange that when one takes a driving test in a fairly modern car, even one 10 years old, which has direction indicators, one is not allowed to use them, but has to go through the town flapping like an albatross, yet, as soon as one has passed the test, one forgets about flapping and uses the direction indicators. We should allow drivers taking a test to use equipment which, after all, is sanctioned by the Minister of Transport.
Part of the test should be to drive between two points, perhaps five miles apart, to test the driver's anticipation of road conditions and traffic. If he is asked to drive for 100 yards, and does not know whether to turn left, or to turn right, it is hardly a fair test. Indeed, when I took my test on a motor cycle I was asked to drive along a little street. to turn left, to turn right, to turn the other side, and back again, and I failed because I lost the examiner. It all be-became so complicated that I did not know where to turn. I am sure that if a driver was asked to drive, say, five miles from one point to another, whatever the traffic conditions, it would be accepted as fair.
Those are only partial remedies for dealing with a big problem. We want better roads and better cars. The car is a lethal weapon. We in this House should encourage the proper use of cars, and impose the severest penalties on those who misuse them.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Clive Bossom: I shall probably have to break all speed limits because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
Whenever one talks of road safety, one is reminded of the old and simple rule of the three Es—education, enforcement and engineering, which are all more applicable today than ever before. First, education. We must not let up on improving driving tuition. Education has been mentioned in schools, especially for teenagers on leaving. This must be improved. Another need is the re-education of the elderly. This should be looked into as a long-term policy.
Enforcement is badly needed. The only way in which we can achieve road safety and road discipline is continually to patrol roads. London has created a Central Traffic Division. Every county should follow suit and have a special mobile section of courtesy cops, or whatever one likes to call them.
Lane discipline does not begin to be understood in this country compared with Europe and America. It must be rigidly enforced. I should like to see a fine of l0s. or more imposed on drivers who disregard the white line.
Speed limits must be reviewed. Many must be made more reasonable and more

realistic, and then they must be enforced by traffic police. Speed limits on motorways may one day have to be introduced, especially for commercial vehicles and even motor cycles. In the meantime, for safety, commercial vehicles should be banned from going on the "overtaking lane" or call it the "third lane" on motorways
Better lighting of highways is essential. If the Government want to reduce fatal accidents by 50 per cent. at night, they must give local authorities higher grants. I want to see more holiday makers drive at night. Better and more lighting on trunk roads, other roads and danger spots will encourage them to do so. Highway engineers must site many more bus lay-bys, and there must be a better siting of double white lines.
I make a plea that we should not construct any more three-lane roads; they are murder. I ask the Minister whether there are any of these roads in the pipeline, in the classified schemes. I hope not. There is another matter concerning motorways to which I want to refer. We need more research into making a combined crash barrier and anti-dazzle screen. I like the idea of the fishnet which will absorb motor cars and stop them bouncing back.
Reflectorised edge lining is still not universally accepted for use in fog. In my opinion red cat's eyes should be placed on the central lane reservations as a warning to drivers, with alternate white and amber ones at road junctions. A recent survey by the Automobile Association has shown that 38 per cent. of vehicles checked had lighting defects. I hope that we shall look into new standards, new designs and new degrees of brightness for rear lights, especially for commercial vehicles. In America large trucks have lights festooned all over them, but I would like to see lights on the top corners of the loads of every commercial vehicle. We must do more about the braking standards of commercial vehicles. As soon as possible we should make vehicle testing schemes compulsory for commercial vehicles.
Industry, with the help of the Government, must soon devise an anti-pollution device for all exhausts. Smoking exhausts help to cause accidents, because people in desperation try to pass trucks which


are belching forth black and evil-smelling fumes.
I want to give a word of praise and thanks to the R.A.C. and A.A. organisations for the way in which they help road safety with their patrols and their signs, and the propaganda that they send to their members—I also praise the Red Cross and St. John organisation for the way in which it mans its first-aid posts and, finally, I have a word of praise for Sir William Glanville, the retiring Director of the Road Research Laboratory, who has done so much for road safety.

4.42 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I am sorry to intervene at this point, but this subject has attracted the interest of many hon. Members. I am pleased that that is so, but since we lost a little time at the beginning of the debate, and because of the multiplicity of topics raised—of which I have received due notice from the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell)—I have a considerable amount to say.
That is one reason for haste. Another, which may be shared by all of us, is the fact that we look forward to a brief respite from our labours. That feeling may not be shared by all hon. Members, but it is a point which must be taken into account.
As far as I can I want to take seriatim the points of which the hon. Member gave me notice. During the course of my remarks I shall refer to some of the other points which have been raised by hon. Members who have intervened. I say now, however, that if I fail to cover any of their points those points will be noted in my Department and all hon. Members will receive replies in due course.
Fortunately, in spite of the fact that there are not so many full-dress debates on the subject of transport there are many opportunities in Adjournment debates for discussing transport matters. We are to have four out of the five Adjournment debates in the week when we return after Easter. Other hon. Members may have a chance to intervene then.
One of the main themes of the speech of the hon. Member for Wembley, South was that of accidents—a subject which continues to present an appalling problem.
I am glad that so many Members are concerned to probe both the causes and possible cures of accidents. I hope that I can give adequate answers to several of the points made by the hon. Member. He referred to the work of the Road Research Laboratory. We are very pleased to have that Laboratory to assist us in the Ministry.
I turn, first, to the question of motorway accidents. The Road Research Laboratory has shown that the number of personal injury accidents per million vehicle miles travelled, for example, on the M.1, is lower than the number on any all-purpose road of comparable traffic density in Britain. During the first 12 months after the opening of the M.1 the number of casualties on the roads in the nine counties which surround it fell by 1,397. During that period there were 411 casualties on the M.1, which meant a net reduction in the number of casualties, in the first period after the opening of the motorway, of 986. It seems, however, that on roads of a traffic density comparable to a motorway like the M.1 there is hardly any difference in the rate of fatal accidents to drivers.
To give the figures for which the hon. Member asked, in 1964 there were 1,630 casualties on all motorways in Britain arising from 955 accidents. On the M.6, there were 230 personal injury accidents and, unfortunately, 24 of them were fatal. We find that there is no one predominating cause for these accidents. This is one of the great difficulties in tackling the problem. About 11 per cent. of accidents occurred while a vehicle was overtaking and in 26 of the cases which I have mentioned a goods vehicle was overtaking.
When one compares this with other roads it shows no great differentiation between motorways and other roads with a comparable density. I am afraid, therefore, we have to say that we have no really reliable evidence to show who or what was responsible for the majority of these accidents. Nor can we say how many of them were due to excessive speed. Obviously, in very many cases speed was a contributory cause.
Hon. Members will know that the Highway Code and my Department's special leaflet, entitled "Motorway Manners", emphasises the need for all drivers to check very carefully before


overtaking that the lane it is proposed to join is clear for a long distance behind and to signal well in advance. We are aware of the importance of lane discipline. I must emphasise that, comparatively, the motorways are proven to be sale roads. They could, of course, be made safer still if all drivers ensured that their vehicles were in good condition and if they drove within the capabilities of themselves and their vehicles. It is, I think, within the experience of all hon. Members that it is quite possible to drive at a high average speed without indulging in excess. On the whole, experience has been that the motorways have safety standards built into them, but in the last resort it is the drivers who determine how safe the roads will be.
The point was raised regarding particular categories of drivers and their responsibility for accidents, and the hon. Gentleman referred particularly to teenagers and youths. I have studied the figures and I cannot give an answer which is by any means conclusive. The Road Research Laboratory has done work which tends to show—I put it no higher—that misjudging clearance or speed is more prevalent in the lowest and the highest age groups of drivers, but it is a tentative conclusion. The figures show that in 1963 drivers under 20 were involved in about one-thirteenth of accidents causing fatal or serious injury. I leave it to hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
The hon. Gentleman and others raised a number of short points on the subject of safety measures. Perhaps I can deal with these rapidly. First of all, the question of trafficators and their colour. It has already been decided that direction indicators on vehicles first registered in this country on or after 1st September this year must be amber in colour. The Regulations were made in 1963 in order to give effect to this and bring it into force this year. The most modern vehicles, therefore, are already being fitted, in accordance with these regulations, with amber indicators. Incidentally, we are following a recommendation from the Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe. As soon as we have gained experience of the new type of indicator, standardised and in general use, we shall consider, as I said in reply to a Question

earlier, making this compulsory for all vehicles on the road.
The hon. Member raised another question in relation to the colour amber, the amber phase at traffic signals. The only traffic signal controllers which allow red and amber on one road and amber on another to appear concurrently for as long as three seconds were installed before 1955. The more recent type of traffic controller reduces this concurrence to one second and provides a minimum separation of two seconds between the end of the green on one approach and the start of the red and amber on the other. It therefore reduces the risk of drivers missing the red and amber signals and at many awkward sites cuts down the delay and frustration, with the attendant risk of accidents. There is some possibility of danger in the concurrent amber signals in the older type of equipment, but we have to face the fact that it would be a very considerable cost immediately and in a wholesale fashion to replace these old signals, but in due course this is something which will come about.
The hon. Member also referred to street naming, and numbering, something which has no doubt bothered many hon. Members. I certainly agree entirely with him that there is room for improvement here. He stated the position. My Department has some responsibility and in January, 1963, sent a circular to all local authorities, which recommended standards in the design and use of name plates. These were subsequently endorsed by the Worboys Committee on Traffic Signs. We are now considering whether the deficiencies should again be drawn to the attention of the local authority associations. The hon. Gentleman quoted certain figures from a survey by the A.A., showing that there were some deficiencies. We shall certainly take into account the representations which have been made by the hon. Member and others in this respect.
Reference was made to the question of giving way at roundabouts. The hon. Gentleman will know that on 10th March, in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith), my right hon. Friend said that we should have to await the results of the current experiment before taking a decision. We think that a year


is needed to assess the results of this experiment with the "Give Way" signal. It will be June of this year before the controls on the 80 selected roundabouts have been in operation for this period. We shall then consider whether to adopt the give-way rule generally.
I come, very swiftly, to the London issues. First, pedestrians in and around St. James's Park. We have no responsibility directly in this matter. Our only locus is that we advise the Minister of Public Building and Works when approached by his Department. Already, as a result of our advice, a manned crossing is in operation at peak hours on most week days by the Duke of York's Steps. We have recently been approached again by my right hon. Friend and we are arranging censuses at certain points. We shall look specifically at the position outside Buckingham Palace. There has been a very strong view about amenity and its possible destruction by the introduction of crossings. We shall look at this matter very carefully and we hope to be able to give advice to the responsible Department in about four or five weeks' time.
The box junction experiment has recently been extended to a further 15 intersections in London. So far, it seems that delays, particularly on the side roads, have been reduced by the boxes, especially at the busier junctions. But we need to assess results properly before we can give advice to other local authorities about this type of traffic management measure. The Greater London Council, now the traffic authority for London, will be reviewing the experiment, and we can then decide what to say to other traffic authorities outside London. It may well be that we shall come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member.
I was asked about controlled crossings in other places. We have not yet decided whether to extend the experimental "matchstick men" crossings in Harrow Road, Green Lanes and Ealing. As my right hon. Friend said on 25th March, the results so far do not point to any firm conclusion about the value of the experiment. Public reaction on the whole has been favourable. The principle of a secure crossing for pedestrians seems to have been welcome.
We welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, which emphasise the need for self-discipline on the part of pedestrians as well as the provision of safety measures for them. On the other hand, vehicle journey speeds through the controlled streets have dropped on average by about 23 per cent. In consultation with the G.L.C. and the local authorities, we are considering possible modifications aimed at reducing traffic delays, and it would be for the G.L.C. to introduce any such modifications.
I was asked about accidents on London roundabout systems. All the personal injury accidents during the first six months of the Harlesden experiment and during a comparable period of the previous year involved only slight injury. My hon. Friend mentioned a 75 per cent. increase. In fact, at Harlesden before the experiment there were 15 accidents, four of them involving pedestrians, afterwards there were 14, seven of them involving pedestrians. It is, therefore, true that the increase in pedestrian accidents was 75 per cent. But this figure can be very misleading, in view of the very small numbers involved.
The accidents in the period before the scheme were concentrated at the three signalled junctions and those after the scheme started were very scattered. The accident position here runs counter to our usual experience, and there is no fundamental reason why the later figures should not show an improvement. We certainly hope that they will.
I must refer rapidly to the important question of the North Circular Road and its junctions with Neasden Lane and Harrow Road. Improvements to these two junctions have to be looked at in relation to our plans for the comprehensive improvement of the North Circular. We intend eventually to provide dual three-lane carriageways all along this road, with limited access and grade separation at major junctions. Neasden Lane is a particularly urgent problem. Piecemeal improvement is not enough. We want to find a radical solution and we have made provision for that in the current trunk road programme. But the difficulties will be apparent when I say that 11 different proposals for this junction have been examined since 1962 and most of them have proved completely inadequate.
The most promising scheme—mentioned by my hon. Friend—would involve a half-mile diversion of Neasden Lane, passing under the North Circular, with provision for pedestrians by subway, but this would involve the demolition of about 100 houses and would cost over £1¼ million. My hon. Friend will understand from this why we are still discussing the whole question and have not yet been able to publish any proposals. We hope to be able to do so soon.
At the Harrow Road, we feel that there is scope for improvement. Work has already started on a traffic management scheme to come into operation in July or August of this year. This will give consi0020derable relief. We hope in 1967–68 to be able to start major improvements by widening Harrow Road

to provide a spacious junction controlled by lights. When these measures are complete we expect to be able to provide for a 50 per cent. increase in capacity at this junction.
Finally, may I quickly say a word about Easter accidents. The hon. Member mentioned the figures for last year. I hope that all drivers will take the utmost care on the roads this Easter because we are very worried about the accident figures. The Department will issue the provisional figures for deaths on the road day by day. My hope is that those who are on duty for this job will have an easy task.

It being Five o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, till Monday, 26th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 13th April.